Forces Chief Blasts Blair

[cal04]

The man who led Britain's armed forces into Iraq says Tony Blair will join British soldiers in the dock if the military is ever prosecuted for war crimes. It is the first time Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the former Chief of Defence Staff, has made any intervention in the political row over the conflict and is another major blow to Mr Blair with just days to go before polling day.

Sir Michael's interview in the Oberver also comes as two other newspapers make claims that Mr Blair had been committed to war in Iraq from the outset because he wanted regime change. Sir Michael said he did not have full legal cover from prosecution at the International Criminal Court (ICC). He told the newspaper: "If my soldiers went to jail and I did, some other people would go with me.

"I wanted to make sure sure that we had this anchor which has been signed by the government law officer. It may not stop us from being charged, but my God, it would make sure other people were brought into the frame as well."
Pressed if he meant Tony Blair, he replied: "Too bloody right."

The former defence chief added that he had never been shown the crucial March 7 advice by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith that questioned whether the war was legal. He had only been given a later assurance of legality which contained none of the caveats. In another damaging development for Mr Blair, The Sunday Times says it has obtained Downing Street documents that show the Prime Minister was privately committed to war long before a decision was taken by Parliament.It says Mr Blair was discussing the possibility of regime change in Iraq in July 2002.

http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-1180268,00.html

[frictionlessO]

1. Wow!! now imagine if Sanchez said something like this!!

I mean that could uhmmm really have an effect on boosh support.

Gods I hope the UK puts Lib Dems in everywhere.




and uhm.. nominate it.

[KingOfLostSouls]

2. I LOVE British Parliament

imagine if the chimp had to suffer like in the house of commons

"ladies and gentleman, the president of the united states"

"BOOO HISS BOOO HOGWASH"


imagine the chimp trying to take on opposition without a script

[DoYouEverWonder]

3. This is why Bu$hCo

was so adamantly opposed the the ICC.

[Wizard777]

5. Yep! Court Nulification.

He's trying to nulify the court that can and will hold him accountable for his crimes. On a smaller scale. It's the equivalent you robbing a bank and rallying against the federal governments ability to apply their laws to the people of your state. He's trying to avoid prosecution. The ICC is no threat to the average American. Bush has not one iota of concern for the average American. The only ass he is covering is his own. What international laws have YOU personally broken? Have YOU personally ordered your army to illegally invade a soveriengn state? Are YOU an "Enemy Power?" Have YOU failed to PREVENT the abuse of YOUR POW's? Don't allow Bush to guilt you into feeling responsible for his crimes. He wants to be "Our Leader" right up until it's time to go to jail. That's when it's your turn to take over. Sorry, The ICC doesn't work that way. They know it's Bush's ass In the hot seat and not yours. Even if he doesn't. It's just like we say hear in America. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

[Wizard777]

4. Go Sir Michael!

The war in Iraq is illegal and from Blair on down bears criminal liability. The same applies to Bush. This is a war of agression. We were not attacked. That would have brought us into a war with Iraq on the right foot. It would have put International Law on our side. It would have used international law to legally tie the hands of the UN. Once we are attacked the security council has no say in our defense of our sovereignty. As long as we do not violate the laws of war or the Geneva Convention. The flag on the foul has already been tossed by Kofi Anann upon the invasion. "They have just violated the UN Charter." If they do not prosecute. Then Kofi Anann and the UN would become coconspirators to a profidious attack upon Iraq. The UN placed them hors de combat with resolution 1441 then grossly neglected to enforce the UN Charter to allow for a profidious attack upon Iraq by the coalition. Just like with Iraq. It may take 12 years for the crap to hit the fan. But make no mistake about it. The crap is on the way. The preinvasion rush by UN inspectors to destroy anything that could have even been construed to be a WMD. Was a measure to ensure conviction upon prosecution. Hans Blixx yanked the rug out from underneath Bush and Blair before thier arrival. Brilliant Move! If Kofi doesn't seek their prosecution. He could end up standing trial with them for aiding and abeiting war criminals.

[cal04]

6. Revealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war

PM decided on conflict from the start. Blair told war illegal in March 2002. Latest leak confirms Goldsmith doubts

A damning minute leaked to a Sunday newspaper reveals that in July 2002, a few weeks after meeting George Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, Mr Blair summoned his closest aides for what amounted to a council of war. The minute reveals the head of British intelligence reported that President Bush had firmly made up his mind to invade Iraq and overthrow Saddam Hussein, adding that "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy".

At the same time, a document obtained by this newspaper reveals the Foreign Office legal advice given to Mr Blair in March 2002, before he travelled to meet Mr Bush at his Texas ranch. It contains many of the reservations listed nearly a year later by the Attorney General in his confidential advice to the Prime Minister, which the Government was forced to publish last week, including the warning that the US government took a different view of international law from Britain or virtually any other country.

The advice, also put before the July meeting, was drawn up in part by Elizabeth Wilmshurst, the Foreign Office's deputy legal adviser, who resigned on the eve of war in protest at what she called a "crime of aggression".

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634702

[Richard Steele]

7. Way to go, Sir Michael!

This is the kind of story the papers carry in FREE, DEMOCRATIC nations!

[cal04]

8. British military chief reveals new legal fears over Iraq war

A further confidential document leaked this weekend is the Foreign Office legal opinion that expressed grave doubts about the legality of war without a second UN resolution. An Observer investigation into the legal ramifications of the war also reveals that Goldsmith's advice authorising war was shaped after meeting the five most powerful Republican lawyers in the Bush administration, in February 2003.

These included Alberto Gonzales, Bush's controversial chief legal adviser who has been at the centre of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse scandal. Gonzales once famously described elements of the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war as 'quaint'. The four other lawyers were William Taft IV, chief legal adviser to the then Secretary of State Colin Powell; Jim Haynes, chief legal adviser to Donald Rumsfeld in the Pentagon; John Bellinger, chief legal adviser to Condoleezza Rice; and the then US Attorney General, John Ashcroft.

Speaking to The Observer from his Virginia home, Taft explained how the US argument that a second UN resolution was not needed before invading Iraq was put to an undecided Goldsmith. Taft said: 'I will say when we heard about his statement in Parliament ... what he said sounded very familiar.'

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1474276,00.html

[aneerkoinos]

11. Observer

Has Observer publicly apologized supporting this illegal war? If not, when will it do so?

[understandinglife]

9. Tony, oh Tony, May 2 2005 is MissionNOTAccomplished Day and YOU...

...should recognize that FACT and WITHDRAW from the election.

I thought you were a Christian, Tony, not a fristian.

Give it some thought, Tony, do you want to stand trial at The Hague with Bu$h and his fristian neoconster buddies or do you want to 'roll over on them now'?

Peace.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us (The.Day.WE.THE.PEOPLE.BEGIN..........)

[cal04]

10. Blair saw legal caveats a year before invasion

Mr Blair has always maintained he was not aware of any ambiguity in his legal right to go to war. But today we reveal that he saw Foreign Office caveats a year before the Attorney General's infamous advice that has put his reputation in the balance this week. Raymond Whitaker reports


The advice to Tony Blair was stark. "A legal justification for invasion would be needed," said an options paper drawn up for him by the Cabinet Office. "Subject to Law Officers' advice, none currently exists."The date of the memo was 8 March 2002. Its discussion of the legality of war in Iraq, revealed for the first time today in The Independent on Sunday, sheds new light on the full legal advice of the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, which the Government was finally forced to publish amid huge controversy last week.

A few weeks before the Cabinet Office drew up its paper, President George Bush had unveiled the concept of the "axis of evil" in his State of the Union speech, announcing that after the expulsion of al-Qa'ida from Afghanistan, America had a new score to settle: with Saddam Hussein in Iraq. Mr Blair was due to travel to Texas the following month to meet Mr Bush at his ranch in Crawford, and Britain was struggling to work out its approach to the new American agenda.

Three years on, the Cabinet Office paper's view of the "options for regime change" look naive, seeing only two possibilities - a Sunni military strongman in the Saddam mould, or a broadly democratic government which would be "Sunni-dominated", while giving the Shias "fair access to government". The present structure, dominated by Shia and Kurdish Iraqis, with Sunnis only patchily represented, was not envisaged.

When this document was leaked last September, attention rightly focused on its discussion of regime change and the need to step up the pressure on Saddam through tighter sanctions and a military build-up, while working to gather international support and "sensitise" the public through a media campaign. But a previously unseen attachment, written by the Foreign Office's legal advisers, demonstrates that the Prime Minister was warned in detail, more than a year before the war in Iraq, that there was no legal basis for an invasion.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=634698

[emad]

12. A brief history of the great war advice argument

May 01, 2005

A brief history of the great war advice argument

What is the row about?

Before Britain went to war in Iraq two years ago, the attorney-general, Lord Goldsmith, published a brief statement declaring unequivocally that the action was legal. The prime minister refused to publish Goldsmith’s more detailed private advice received 10 days earlier. The published document was a “fair summary”, he said.

What happened last week?
Goldsmith’s private advice was leaked in part on Wednesday. On Thursday, Blair ordered that the 13-page document be published in full.
Does it show that Blair lied?
Better to say that he was economical with the truth. The private advice said that a “reasonable” case could be made for the legality of war — the same standard as was used when military action was taken in Iraq in 1998 and in Kosovo in 1999. It added, however, that a “reasonable” case could also be made against war.
Was the private advice unequivocal as Blair claimed?
Not entirely. It was unequivocal in the sense that Blair himself was covered: he had a reasonable case for war and that was all that precedent required, according to Goldsmith. On the other hand, the advice itself was equivocal, making it clear that the government’s case might not stand up in court.
Is a legal case ever certain?

No, not until it is tested in court.

Is the difference between the two documents important?
According to the Tories and the Liberal Democrats, yes it is. Only Blair, Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, saw the full advice. It was not shown to the other cabinet ministers or to MPs. Critics say that they might not have voted for war if they had known that Britain’s legal case was only “reasonable”, rather than certain. On the other hand, senior ministers, from Gordon Brown downwards, insist that Goldsmith did take them through his analysis of the issue thoroughly.

How does Blair justify not showing Goldsmith’s private advice to parliament?
On several levels. First, he says that much changed in the 10 days between the private advice being received and the final advice being published. Second, he points out that Goldsmith was present at the final cabinet meeting before war to answer ministers’ questions. Third, he says that convention maintains that private legal advice should not be made public.

What changed in those 10 crucial days?
There were several developments. Hopes of getting a second United Nations resolution that would have explicitly allowed military action faded. UK military commanders, who had thousands of troops massed on the border of Kuwait, demanded of Blair a clear opinion of whether war would be legal or not. And Hans Blix, head of the UN weapons inspectors, delivered a new report showing that Iraq was in breach of UN resolutions.

Any other time bombs hidden in Goldsmith’s private advice?

Yes, he noted that “regime change” cannot be used as justification for war. He said that America’s policy of pre-emptive strike was illegal. The advice also warned that the use of force had to be “proportional”: ie, it should be no more than needed to secure Iraq’s disarmament.
Was the war legal or not?

Opinion is divided. The attorney-general maintains that it was legal, as do the Conservatives. However, the Liberal Democrats and many international lawyers believe that it was illegal.
Could action be taken in court?

At least one relative of a dead British soldier hopes to take court action. Lawyers for families of dead Iraqis are also planning to use the leaked attorney-general’s advice to promote their claims for independent inquiries.

Why has America not had the same problems?
America’s laws are different and it has not signed up to the International Criminal Court, which came into effect in 2002. Also, public support for the war was much stronger in America than in Britain; fewer people cared whether it was legal or not.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1593162,00.html

[paineinthearse]

13. Could you imagine Pace or Myers saying this here?

Any flag officers who disagreed with neocon policy were discharged at the beginning of the * administration.

McCain made allusions to that fact in a senate hearing recently. To Myers, he said, "General, I'd ask the same question to you as I asked to Sec. Rummy, but I already know what your answer would be."

[emad]

14. Expect a military coup d'etat in Britain tomorrow.

Even the squaddies have had it up to here with this scumbag administration.