Iraq minutes 'must be released' (UK meeting regarding whether war was legal)

[sabra]

Source: BBC

Ministers have been ordered to release minutes of the cabinet meetings which discussed the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

The Information Tribunal upheld a decision by the Information Commissioner that details of the March 13 and 17 sessions should be disclosed.

The meetings considered the issue of whether the invasion was allowed under international law.

The government failed in its bid to block a Freedom of Information request asking for the release of the minutes.

Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7854105.stm

[dipsydoodle]

1. The mere fact

that the government tried to block release of the minutes just made the rat smell even more.

[proud2BlibKansan]

2. The Downing Street Minutes?

They are the smoking gun.

[muriel_volestrangler]

5. No, this is not the 'Downing Street Minutes'

Those were various minutes and memos from earlier (eg in 2002), about when Blair, Bush and others decided to invade. This is specifically about the British Cabinet meetings, in which they were presented with the (revised) legal opinion that such an invasion could be legal under international law. Previously Lord Goldsmith's advice had been more equivocal, and the justification for the change never seems to have been properly explained - Clare Short in particular thinks the Cabinet weren't allowed to discuss it properly.

[KoKo]

6. But, the Downing Street Memo's release was really the smoking gun

for this new development. I think that's what the poster meant.

Whichever, I'm thankful that "Downing Street Memos" and David Swanson kept the issue alive keeping pressure up.

[proud2BlibKansan]

7. Me to KoKo

I :loveya: David Swanson!!

[cosmicone]

3. This is HUGE!!! n/t

[Lochloosa]

4. I agree. HUGE!!!

[Piewhacket]

8. It is?

It seems about UK attorney (then) general Lord Goldsmith's legal advice on the Iraq war, isn't it?
Lord Goldsmith (March 17) gave an opinion unequivocally saying military action was legal, and
this was presented to the MPs and published.

However, Goodsmith's earlier advice given to Tony Blair on 7 March (published in 2005) raised a
number of questions and concerns about the legality of military action against Iraq without a second
UN resolution. This earlier opinion was apparently never shown to the cabinet.

So these "made to spec" legal opinions, or perhaps we can call them "legal opinions", which were used to provide cover for
an action that might well have been illegal under international law (ie war crimes), may not have even been given or recieved
in "good faith".

So now let me get this straight... the claim is the war was illegal (war of aggression), that Blair, supported by others, flat
out lied to everyone about the basis for war and the legality of waging war, providing bogus facts and ginned up "legal opinions",
and some MPs are now saying they acted in good faith because they were mislead (lied to) and therefore should not be prosecuted
or otherwise held accountable for the war or war crimes?


I'm not sure I get the gist of this story. Is there more to this? Is it just political?
How huge is it? I'm in the US, not the UK, btw.

[LynnTheDem]

9. It's so very simple; war of aggression without UN approval is ILLEGAL.

Did the UN already declare the invasion of Iraq ILLEGAL?

Yep.

According to US, UK and international LAW (and the US Constitution "law of the land"), the invasion of Iraq was in fact ILLEGAL.


Someone's "opinion" doesn't mean shit; the LAW deems the invasion of Iraq ILLEGAL.

Period.

[Hissyspit]

10. kicked and recommended nt

[kpete]

11. Government must release cabinet minutes on lead-up to Iraq war

Source: Guardian UK

Government must release cabinet minutes on lead-up to Iraq war
Information tribunal orders publication of minutes following battle by campaigners

Secret government discussions about the Iraq war are to be disclosed after an information tribunal today ordered the release of cabinet minutes from 2003.

The decision follows a lengthy battle by campaigners, who have argued that the public interest in learning what was said about the planned invasion outweighs the public interest in cabinet discussions being kept secret.

Ministers have strongly opposed the request, arguing that the Freedom of Information Act was never intended to allow for the publication of information of this kind.

The tribunal upheld a decision by the information commissioner that details of the sessions on 13 and 17 March should be disclosed.


Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/27/iraq-minutes

[pleah]

12. K&R This is very interesting.

I wonder if they will get them. I would love to be able to hear what was said at that time, also.

[Frisbee]

13. They're in the same file cabinet as...

all of the Gitmo detainee records. Good luck finding them.

[babylonsister]

14. Good! Let us begin to connect the dots! nt

[dipsydoodle]

15. The Government has 28 days to appeal the decision

but hopefully they won't be stupid enough to do so.