[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Damien

They were different as the first shows a balanced case, and doesn't say it was illegal just says that the case can be made while later he says it is legal. So the change may not be as drastic anyway.

The advice here isnt the smoking gun, it is in fact what was already known before. A lot of people will be disappointed in that but there it is. As Marr has said they made this document worse than it is by hiding it when in reality it isnt anything like what some people thought it would be

Not as drastic?!


The (now released) initial document contained lots of reasoning for *and* against, & included a whole load of qualifiers. The final "summary" released to Parliament contained none of Lord Goldsmith's earlier warnings about how it could easily be found to be illegal to act without further specific authorisation from the UNSC.

Also, whereas initially Goldsmith had said that it's up to the UNSC alone - not individual member states - to determine if Iraq was in breach of 1441 or not, he later determined that there was a breach simply based on Blair's inaccurate claim that there was a breach.

Plus, the earlier document said that if action were to be taken without obtaining a further resolution (& so solely using the "combined authority" of 1441, 687, & 678), "we would need to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation" & "you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity". There was no hard evidence of non-compliance sufficient enough to declare a breach - the Iraqis were actually starting to cooperate, & Blix's latest report was much more favourable than earlier ones (plus we now know there were no weapons anyway). The only evidence used to justify the declaration of a breach is, again, Blair's own "unequivocal" view that there was indeed a breach (and remember, Goldsmith had previously said it was up to the UNSC to determine such a thing).


Sounds quite different to me!

Another thing:

Remember Elizabeth Wilmshurst, former deputy legal advisor to the Foreign Office, who resigned because she believed the war was illegal? Her resignation letter, bits of which were leaked recently, "gave us to understand" that Lord Goldsmith initially agreed with her & other Foreign Office lawyers that the war would be illegal unless a further resolution was passed, but then allegedly twice changed his advice just before, so that it would match the "...now [the] official line".


Quoting Chris & BBKing to re-iterate their similar points in case you missed them...

Originally Posted by Chris T

For me, the only issue today is:

Attorney General, 7 March 2003: "the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear." and "...there are a number of ways in which the opponents of military action might seek to bring a legal case ... against the UK ... we cannot be certain that they would not succeed."

Letter from no.10 to Attoney General, 15 March 2003: "it is indeed the prime minister's unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of its obligations".

Lord Goldsmith, 17 March 2003:
"Authority to use force against Iraq exists from the combined effect of resolution 678, 687, and 1441.

"The Security Council also decided that if Iraq failed at any time to comply with and cooperate fully with the implementation of 1441, that would constitute a further material breach.

"It is plain that Iraq has failed so to comply and therefore Iraq was at the time of resolution 1441 and continues to be in material breach.

"Resolution 1441 would have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. All it requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq's failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force."


What the ...

'Tail wagging the dog' springs to mind.

Originally Posted by BBKing

"it is indeed the prime minister's unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of its obligations".

I'm rapidly entering brain meltdown here, but doesn't Lord Goldsmith's advice (very strongly worded, incidentally) on the 7th say that it *isn't* the PM's role to decide whether Iraq was in breach. Even if his view was unequivocal, it still wasn't his job to decide. Yet ten days later it suddenly is his role and the war's legal because Tony says it's legal? This stinks of herrings somewhere.