Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!

Originally Posted by Damien

despite constants attacks on this issue no one has proved blair lied.

The fact that the Attorney General's advice changed markedly based, it seems, on the Prime Minister's statements, and that Blair claimed that the advice was "clear" when it was, in the first case, anything but, rather gives the lie(!) to this!

The important thing is if you believe the War was right or not.

The important thing is whether we can *TRUST* our political leaders to tell the truth!

If you dont then you can say so on may 5th.

And this is glib and simplistic.

The General Election is about who runs the country and what policies they follow, not a referendum on the war in Iraq. People will be voting on a whole raft of issues although even then, many of those will be voting for a particular party simply because that was how their parents voted etc.

To suggest that people should vote based on only a single issue is naiive.

But those of us who did support the war and still think its good are not ignoring the legal issues or the intelligence or what other issues there are. Today Iraqi got a new government, they have had free elections, saddam has gone and is getting tried by the Iraqi people. You cannot dismiss that by saying it wasn't the reason we went to war.

It is serendipitous that all that has happened, but I remind you that we were told that we were going to war to disarm Saddam of WMDs. Oh, no, sorry, it was for regime change. Oops, my mistake, it was to liberate the Iraqi people. Hang on, actually it was to bring peace to the region. Wait a moment, it was about WMDs after all...

What is the truth...???

Everyone spins, the newspapers do it, people on forums do it, everyone selects facts in such a way to support there view. If you think he went as far to cause him to lie then fine. If you think that he lied about the intelligence then fine, say so on May 5th

See above.

One of the key things to have emerged is that the AG seems quite clear in his opinion that to go to war seeking regime change would be unlawful. This presumably explains why WMDs rather than regime change were cited at the time, despite growing evidence of increased Iraqi co-operation and a lack of WMDs. Two things then happened. No WMDs were found to the surprise of precisely nobody. The argument then switched to 'isn't it great that we've got rid of 'Saddam'. My interpretation is that the Govt knew precisely what it was doing in ignoring Hans Blix and others because it knew it could not justify, in law, military action for regime change. So the only defence Blair has is that they had to pursue the WMD angle in order to achieve the real objective. But that defence has more holes in it than Rab C's vest.

[punky]

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Andy... But I think it is a sad state of affairs when someone who is proven (or at least probably cause) to be commiting crimes against humanity, seems to be immune from any legal real action. I read about his regime, and I can't think theres any possible way anything but prison is for him. The UN needs to tie this down and become more proactive in making sure people like Saddam (And the Papa Docs, Idi Amins, Mugabes, Castros, etc) get stopped, not on weapons grounds, but on humanitarian... Not to let him carry on for 30 years like he did. In my mind, watching someone die, and not helping, when you can, is complicity to murder. The UNSC needs that on their minds. The sanctions wern't a punishment for him, they were a punishment for the country's citizens. It can't (or rather shouldn't) be right to let Saddam live out his reign as BBking suggested. Partly because his sons would inherit it, and another 30-40 years starts all over again. And then they have sons, and so on.

I can't help it, its the bleeding-heart liberal in me (that I keep trying to hide ) All I can think about, is that if I was trapped under Saddam's regime, I would just think... "Why isn't anyone helping? Why are they letting this go on?" I wouldn't care who helped, and the majority of Iraqis don't, so long as Saddam is removed and a different successor is in place.

Punky, I've told you off before about agreeing with me. Puts me right off my stride. Please do your lines

Of course if we're going to attack countries with appalling human rights records then I guess we'd better get those missiles trained on China! And, in the light of Guantanomo and the executing of someone with learning difficulties... that big place on the other side of the Atlantic, what's it called again?

No easy answers.

[me283]

Just a quick point, as I haven't had time to read the whole thread. Mr. Blair is a lawyer by trade, and another legal person once gave me the sage advice that "lawyer is another word for liar"...

I am resistng the urge to read more on this thread as I've just seen the mention of "human rights", and I don't want to get started on that again!

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

Of course if we're going to attack countries with appalling human rights records then I guess we'd better get those missiles trained on China! And, in the light of Guantanomo and the executing of someone with learning difficulties... that big place on the other side of the Atlantic, what's it called again?

No easy answers.

Indeed... This is why we need some kind of commision on the UN, that can look at what countries are doing, and if they are doing something untoward, then they'll be orderered to cease. If they don't then the UN would order increasingly stronger punishments, ending in the UN sending its troops in, and they'll be made to stop. A single commission would make ensure uniformity across the world, which has been sadly lacking, much to the delight of people like Saddam.

Of course this is a brave new world here... The UN would be forced to do something productive for a change. As far as I can see, the UN wants world peace, but if that means no war, but people like Saddam are in power, then I don't consider that to be good enough.

And furthermore, when the US...:

1. ...president orders people he doesn't like to be fed into a wood chipper, feet first...

2. ...the opposition party disappears overnight and is never seen again...

3. ...rapes the family members of the supporters of the opposition party, as 'punishment'...

4. ...when the first person to stop clapping and sit down at every presidential rally is killed, and the same to people who don't look happy enough during rallys (this was Hitler, but I think Saddam did it too)...

... then I will personally enlist in any army and go there and fight them (providing the UN considers this to be bad enough to warrant action, and we know from Saddam, the above isn't bad enough).

A big part of the problem is the make up (and veto power arrangements) of the Security Council.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

A big part of the problem is the make up (and veto power arrangements) of the Security Council.

Personally I think thats a separate issue (security isn't the same as justice). I do think the UNSC should be overhauled, for one thing, because of Syria being given a seat on the UNSC. That just exposes what a joke the UN is; Here is a country that is supposed to be telling others how to run themselves, but we aren't allowed to deport anyone back there because of their human rights abuses! The same could be said for China over its stances with civil rights to citizens and its stances with Taiwan and Tibet. If noone can be bothered to right these things if they consider it unjust, then at the very least China should be exluded from being able to enforce other countries to behave themselves.

A new council should be formed, because crimes against humanity doesn't come under the security umbrella, it comes under a justice one. Their descision would be final, rather than all this: "is it legal to do x" or "is it illegal to do y". Basically a much more organised, and proactive role to protecting human's rights. Some people are very concerned about their human rights (and mine, I guess) with regards to ID cards, etc, but seem much less concerned with the human rights of Iraqis to be able to support an opposition-to-government party.

Originally Posted by punky

Indeed... This is why we need some kind of commision on the UN, that can look at what countries are doing, and if they are doing something untoward, then they'll be orderered to cease.

You mean something like the World Court which is already a nonsense because the US has said "nope, we're not going along with that unless *we* get total immunity from it" (because otherwise they *would* face charges of War Crimes!)

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

You mean something like the World Court which is already a nonsense because the US has said "nope, we're not going along with that unless *we* get total immunity from it" (because otherwise they *would* face charges of War Crimes!)

The world court only deals with people once they are in custody... It has nothing to do getting people into custody, which is the difficult part, everyone would rather someone else do.

And with the US being the most universally despised country in the world (on par with Israel, which also, sensibly rejects the ICC), its not like it would be subject to frivilous complaints, would it? Furthermore the immunity only applies during UN-sanctioned peacekeeping, and it has been granted to other countries before. Indeed, the UNSC voted in favour of extending the immunity against the US.

Of course, Saddam wouldn't even be awaiting trial in the ICC if it wasn't for the US. He'd still be feeding people into the woodchipper. I doubt Blair would have had a sudden attack of conscience, or anyone else in the world.

Besides, if the UN dealt with who gets complaints against, theoretically there wouldn't be any frivilous complaints... but then again, when was the last time someone at least hwal-way sensible worked for the UN?

Originally Posted by punky

The world court only deals with people once they are in custody... It has nothing to do getting people into custody, which is the difficult part, everyone would rather someone else do.

Not the Americans! They're quite happy to bring *others* to book, as long as *they* don't face the same sanctions!

[quote]And with the US being the most universally despised country in the world (on par with Israel, which also, sensibly rejects the ICC),

It's only sensible for them because they, too, could be subject to its attentions for their treatment of the Palestinians (illegal occupation of land. Building settlemnts in violation of international law...)

its not like it would be subject to frivilous complaints, would it?

It's not like the USA hasn't got a lot to answer for in front of the ICC!

Of course, Saddam wouldn't even be awaiting trial in the ICC if it wasn't for the US.

And if it wasn't for the US there wouldn't *STILL* be people languishing at Guantanamo Bay...

[Tezcatlipoca]

ROFL..... More leaks.... Some very interesting stories in the Sunday papers


From today's Sunday Times:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...592904,00.html

Originally Posted by The Sunday Times

May 01, 2005

Blair hit by new leak of secret war plan
Michael Smith
A SECRET document from the heart of government reveals today that Tony Blair privately committed Britain to war with Iraq and then set out to lure Saddam Hussein into providing the legal justification.

The Downing Street minutes, headed †œSecret and strictly personal †â€Â� UK eyes onlyâ₠¬Ã‚Â�, detail one of the most important meetings ahead of the invasion.

It was chaired by the prime minister and attended by his inner circle. The document reveals Blair backed †œregime changeââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� by force from the outset, despite warnings from Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, that such action could be illegal.

(snip)

It records a meeting in July 2002, attended by military and intelligence chiefs, at which Blair discussed military options having already committed himself to supporting President George Bushâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s plans for ousting Saddam.

†œIf the political context were right, people would support regime change,ââ‚à ‚¬Ã‚ÂÂ� said Blair. He added that the key issues were †œwhether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan space to workââ‚ ¬Ã‚ÂÂ�.

The political strategy proved to be arguing Iraqââ‚ ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s weapons of mass destruction (WMD) posed such a threat that military action had to be taken. However, at the July meeting Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, said the case for war was †œthinâà ƒÆ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ � as †œSaddam was not threatening his neighbours and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iranââ‚ ¬Ã‚ÂÂÂ�.

Straw suggested they should †œwork upââ‚ ¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� an ultimatum about weapons inspectors that would †œhelp with the legal justificationâ↚¬ÂÂÂÂ�. Blair is recorded as saying that †œit would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectorsââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�.

A separate secret briefing for the meeting said Britain and America had to †œcreateà¢ÃƒÆ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚Âà ‚Â� conditions to justify a war.

(snip)

Plus there's also:

Blair planned Iraq war from start

(related story)

Originally Posted by The Sunday Times

For the secret documents †� seen by The Sunday Times †� reveal that on that Tuesday in 2002:

# Blair was right from the outset committed to supporting US plans for †œregime changeââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� in Iraq.

# War was already †œseen as inevitableââ ¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�.

# The attorney-general was already warning of grave doubts about its legality.

Straw even said the case for war was †œthinâà ƒÆ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ �. So Blair and his inner circle set about devising a plan to justify invasion.

(snip)

And the *very* interesting leaked memo itself...definitely worth a read! - "The secret Downing Street memo"


Menawhile, over at the Sunday Indy...

"Revealed: documents show Blair's secret plans for war"

Originally Posted by Independent on Sunday

PM decided on conflict from the start. Blair told war illegal in March 2002. Latest leak confirms Goldsmith doubts
By Raymond Whitaker, Andy McSmith and Francis Elliott

01 May 2005

Tony Blair had resolved to send British troops into action alongside US forces eight months before the Iraq War began, despite a clear warning from the Foreign Office that the conflict could be illegal

(snip)

....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".

(snip)

Very juicy stuff. Plus these leaks contain more ammo IMO for the case alleging that Blair lied & misled.

Wonder who's leaking all this?


And finally, an interview with Admiral Sir Michael Boyce:

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/polit...474276,00.html

Originally Posted by The Observer

Antony Barnett and Martin Bright
Sunday May 1, 2005
The Observer

The man who led Britain's armed forces into Iraq has said that Tony Blair and the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, will join British soldiers in the dock if the military are ever prosecuted for war crimes in Iraq.

In a remarkably frank interview that goes to the heart of the political row over the Attorney General's legal advice, Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the former Chief of the Defence Staff, said he did not have full legal cover from prosecution at the International Criminal Court (ICC).

'If my soldiers went to jail and I did, some other people would go with me,' said Boyce.

In his most detailed explanation yet of why he demanded an unequivocal assurance from lawyers that the war was legal, he said: 'I wanted to make sure that we had this anchor which has been signed by the government law officer ...

'It may not stop us from being charged, but, by God, it would make sure other people were brought into the frame as well.'

Pressed by The Observer on whether he meant the Prime Minister and the Attorney General, Boyce replied: 'Too bloody right.'

(snip)

Little bit from the same story, later on, about Goldsmith's opinion being shaped....

Originally Posted by The Observer

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.

[BBKing]

Basically confirming what seems to have been the case

It was Bush's idea
Blair went along with it
They were worried about public opinion but thought they could persuade us, which explains the dodgy dossiers and the presentation of a heavily biased case
They weren't worried about legality until the armed forces starting getting worried

So we've effectively neutralised our permanent security council seat (since it's now established that you can bypass the SC if you feel like it) for the dubious privilege of being George Bush's best mate, benefits to the UK uncertain. Nice foreign policy, Tony.

Straw even said the case for war was †œthinâà ƒÆ’¢â€šÂ¬Ã‚ �

He said more than that, he said that
* Iraq's WMD capability (as wrongly estimated by the security services and presented to ministers) was less than Libya, Iran or North Korea
* Iraq wasn't a threat to it's neighbours.

Quite where 'less than Libya, Iran or North Korea' became '45 minutes from attack' is an interesting question, as it implies that either Blair lied or he thought that those three countries could use WMDs in less than 45 minutes.

[punky]

Originally Posted by BBKing

So we've effectively neutralised our permanent security council seat (since it's now established that you can bypass the SC if you feel like it)

So you actually think the UNSC and the UN had any respect or actually resolved anything? The UN is the very model of lethargy, it always has been. They never do anything, they just talk about it. The only way anything gets done, is if someone else sticks their neck out and does it themselves. The UN has been thoroughly impotent for years. And when it does actually try to help, like a bumbling fool, it can't help but screw up. Sanctions in Iraq were killing many children (and adults) daily.

The whole organisation needs a complete re-organisation, starting with firing Annan for gross incompetence.

Originally Posted by punky

The UN is the very model of lethargy, it always has been. They never do anything, they just talk about it.

To quote Churchill "'Jaw jaw' is better than 'war war'"

The UN has been thoroughly impotent for years.

Because if anything happens that someone (usually the Americans) doesn't like (such as condemning Israel for Human Rights abuses) the Yanks veto it.

The whole organisation needs a complete re-organisation, starting with firing Annan for gross incompetence.

Fine, why don't you put yourself up for the job since you know what's wrong and I'm sure you know how to fix it too...