How Bliar pushed us into an illegal war:

[mr blur]

according to revelations in The Guardian:

"The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned less than two weeks before the invasion of Iraq that military action could be ruled illegal.

The government was so concerned that it might be prosecuted it set up a team of lawyers to prepare for legal action in an international court."

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1423304,00.html

[Englander]

1. "A crime of aggression"

Why is Goldsmith's legal advice not being published?

Probably because his advice was that a second UN resolution,
which explicity sanctioned military action was essential.
The same UN resolution that US/UK tried to bully & bribe the
other members of the UN into signing,and which they failed
to procur.



http://www.penguin.co.uk/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,0_0713997923,00.html#


Edited to include pic of book.

[D-Notice]

2. Tut tut tut...

Are you implying that the reason the legal opinion on Oil War has not been published is that it would make our Dear Leader look bad?

Don't you believe his statement that it hasn't been published as it go against the govt's ability to get full & frank independant legal advice?

Some people are just too suspicious! ;-)

[Englander]

4. Haha..

"look bad".. And I hope,open him up to prosecution!!

Bliar bet the farm on Saddam being a lying dictator,
but he was actually being truthful when stating that Iraq's
WMD programme ended in '91.

It would be fascinating to see this advice,to see
how a pre-emptive,illegal,war of aggression was spun
and to see how Goldsmith found some,any,even a little
piece of legal cover.

[muriel_volestrangler]

3. I suspect the advice also depended on the assumption

that the 'evidence' for the breaking of resolution 1441 was true, and not made up by Blair and Bush.

[Englander]

10. My fave piece of that "evidence" of the ..

whole Iraq/Al qaeda/WMD/45 minutes bollix was
this,a story about UAV (unmanned aerial vehicles) dropping
anthrax over NY;

Florida Today December 16, 2003
Senators were told Iraqi weapons could hit U.S.
Nelson said claim made during classified briefing

By John McCarthy

U.S. Sen. Bill Nelson said Monday the Bush administration last year told him and other senators that Iraq not only had weapons of mass destruction, but they had the means to deliver them to East Coast cities.

Nelson, D-Tallahassee, said about 75 senators got that news during a classified briefing before last October's congressional vote authorizing the use of force to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Nelson voted in favor of using military force.

Nelson said he couldn't reveal who in the administration gave the briefing.

The White House directed questions about the matter to the Department of Defense. Defense officials had no comment on Nelson's claim.

Nelson said the senators were told Iraq had both biological and chemical weapons, notably anthrax, and it could deliver them to cities along the Eastern seaboard via unmanned aerial vehicles, commonly known as drones.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/org/news/2003/031216-iraqi-weapons.htm

[Mr Creosote]

6. Why is Goldsmith's legal advice not being published?

Because, according to C4 News tonight, it was equivocal.
http://www.channel4.com/news/2005/02/week_4/23_attorney.html

[fedsron2us]

5. Let us list those Nuremberg indictments again

Count One: Conspiracy to Wage Aggressive War
This count helped address the crimes committed before the war began, showing a plan to commit crimes during the war.

Count Two: Waging Aggressive War, or "Crimes Against Peace"
Including “the planning, preparation, initiation, and waging of wars of aggression, which were also wars in violation of international treaties, agreements, and assurances.”

Count Three: War Crimes
These were the more “traditional” violations of the law of war including treatment of prisoners of war, slave labor, and use of outlaws weapons.

Count Four: Crimes Against Humanity
This count involved the actions in concentration camps and other death rampages.

I think Blair might have a case to answer on at least the first two counts.

[muriel_volestrangler]

7. You have to love Sir Mike Jackson's comment in the Guardian story

"The extent of concern among military chiefs is reflected by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, head of the army, quoted by Peter Hennessy, professor of contemporary history at Queen Mary College, London. "I spent a good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars," said Sir Mike. "I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in the Hague.""

[non sociopath skin]

8. Dubya might have a problem with Point 3, also ...

The Skin

[T_i_B]

9. Transcripts show No 10's hand in war legal advice

Anyone watch Channel 4 news last night?

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,1424130,00.html

Transcripts of evidence given in private by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, to an official inquiry suggest that the crucial advice on the legality of war, presented to parliament in his name, was written for him by two of Tony Blair's closest allies.

The document, seen by the Guardian, reveals the attorney general's private exchanges with Lord Butler during the course of his inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run-up to war against Iraq.

In them, the attorney general suggests his parliamentary statement giving legal backing to Britain's participation in the invasion was "set out" by Charles Falconer, then Home Office minister, and Baroness Morgan, the prime minister's director of political-government relations.

In apparent contradiction to his Butler evidence, the attorney general yesterday sought to deny that 10 Downing Street had any influence over his decisive statement.