[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by punky

Which is much worse than France threatening to veto any second resolution regardless of what it says?

Few things on that:


1)

Originally Posted by Lord Goldsmith

I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the security council ... So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed security council authorisation ...

2)

IIRC, Chirac didn't say France would veto *any* further resolution - he said France would veto any further resolution *which contained an automatic trigger for war*


3) The US & UK did not have enough votes anyway for their "second" resolution, hence it was pulled & was not voted on. It was not pulled because France would veto it anyway. Even if France had not threatened the veto, the "second" resolution could not have passed at that time due to the lack of positive votes for it amongst the Council. If the US & UK had had the votes required, I'm sure they would have gone ahead & called a vote - even if they thought France would veto it - as they could have used their legally dubious "unreasonable veto" arguement, & claimed it had support enough anyway.




Shifting back to the main topic...........


http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...474584,00.html

Attorney general subject of Bar complaint

Clare Dyer, legal editor
Monday May 2, 2005
The Guardian

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, faces a possible Bar Council disciplinary hearing over his advice on the legality of war against Iraq, after the council's conduct committee decided to consult a constitutional law expert on whether it has jurisdiction to deal with complaints that he breached the Bar's code.

If found guilty of breaching the requirements of the code of conduct, which require barristers to act independently at all times, he could be reprimanded, suspended from practice or even disbarred.

(snip)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politi...ge/4503061.stm

Originally Posted by BBC News

Mr Blair told BBC One's Breakfast with Frost the decision had not been taken at that point to attack Saddam Hussein.

"You have got to discuss everything as you go along, but the point is that after that meeting we decided to go back to the UN and give him a last chance.

"If the UN resolution had been adhered to by Saddam that would have been the end of it, despite the fact it was the most appalling regime."

Really, Mr Blair? So you say it was not about Regime Change, & was only about WMD? Are you sure Mr Blair?...........

http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpo...474587,00.html

(snip)
That regime change was an objective of the prime minister appears clear from a document leaked last year. It records Sir David Manning, the prime minister's foreign policy adviser, writing to Mr Blair about a meeting with Condoleezza Rice, then President George Bush's national security adviser, on March 14 2002, a year before the war. Sir David reported: "I said that you would not budge in your support for regime change but you had to manage a press, a parliament and a public opinion".

Another document leaked last year records Sir Christopher Meyer, British ambassador to the US at the time, as telling Sir David on March 18 2003, the eve of the invasion, about a meeting with the US deputy defence secretary, Paul Wolfowitz. He said: "I opened by sticking very closely to the script that you used with Condi Rice. We backed regime change, but the plan had to be clever and failure was not an option."

(snip)

(plus add the above to the recent leaked memo I posted previously in this thread)