Iraq legal advice leaked - Update: More leaks!

[punky]

Originally Posted by Graham

Please show me anything where any of them said that Saddam should be *left *in power. They, as you, yourself said: "Disagree with the war, by all means" but I don't recall anyone saying "oh no, let's just leave him there and do nothing".

If France wanted to remove Saddam, they wouldn't have threaten to veto any 2nd resolution put to them. You think the "no-war-for-oil" brigade would suddenly be behind the coalition if we had got a second resolution?

I suggest you visit Amnesty International's website http://amnesty.org/ and look at all the *other* examples of people being killed or tortured in the world and ask yourself why he isn't doing anything about *them* too.

I am well aware of what is going on in other countries. I have been vocal in my support of real action in Zimbabwe that Blair won't entertain, along with Darfur, and the other countries, like Executive Outcomes in places like Sierra Leone. I do also know you can't just go bombing every country into oblivion either, and that violence has to be a last resort. Nor can you enforce a western belief system on non-western countries.You judge each case as it comes.

And indeed Amnesty's current headline article states

"A year ago photographs of Iraqi detainees being tortured by the US military at Abu Ghraib prison shocked the world. Abuses by US forces in the †œwar on terrorââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� have not been confined to Abu Ghraib; punishment of those involved or responsible has been inadequate; and torture is also used by the Iraqi security forces."

And those involved have been, and are being punished for that. The consider punishment inadequate, so thats a matter of opinion. I think its naive to think the Iraqi Security Forces would not abuse prisoners rights (the US and the UK cannot either), but I would like to compare that article with Saddam era Iraq, because I think whatever the US/UK/ISF have done in Iraq absolutely pales in comparison to what Saddam, Uday and Qusay did. I haven't heard about the US feeding people into plastic shredders lately.

In the words of our own Attorney General:

"regime change cannot be the objective of military action" although removing Saddam Hussein would be legal "if it can be demonstrated that such action is a necessary and proportionate measure to secure the disarmament of Iraq".

And like others, he is worried that Saddam might have a few old SCUD missiles around, but doesn't seem to worried about what Saddam, Uday and Qusay were doing at the same time. I just think thats so distasteful.

Given that it has now been shown that Iraq did *not* have WMDs and thus the "disarmament" of Iraq was *not* necessary, the only conclusion is that this was an *ILLEGAL* action and I don't know about you, but I think it's a *good* idea to oppose illegal actions, no matter how morally justified you may consider them because that leads down a very dangerous path.

Like I said before, I didn't know Gulf war 2 if Iraq had banned weapons, but I did know what Saddam, etc was upto. I support the war on that principal, and like I said at the start of this thread, I would vote to remove a fully-disarmed Saddam again, if I had to.

Worthy though these issues are, they are a bit of a side-show in the context of the announcements made over the last couple of days. Let's retain a focus here: The Attorney General talks to the PM privately in very cautious terms, then 10 days later the Attorney General tells Parliament, in strident terms, that he belives all is legal and above board.

Some (principally Andrew Marr, who when push comes to shove is a Blair sympathiser) have tried to suggest that the former was just the unpublished musings of the AG, a work in progress and not his final conclusions, whereas what he said 10 days later is his settled view. Frankly this simply doesn't wash - well not with me anyway. Goldsmith underwent something of a Damascene conversion in the intervening period and I would dearly like to know how that happened, and whether the fact that Tony B. Liar sent to him on the 15th to make clear that as far as he was concerned, everything was legal, was significant. Subtext: "Fall into line, Goldsmith"?

Originally Posted by punky

If France wanted to remove Saddam, they wouldn't have threaten to veto any 2nd resolution put to them. You think the "no-war-for-oil" brigade would suddenly be behind the coalition if we had got a second resolution?

That is not only missing the point, that is moving the goalposts as well.

France disagreed with a proposition to pass a resolution justifying an invasion. That does *not* mean they approved of what Saddam was doing.

I am well aware of what is going on in other countries. I have been vocal in my support of real action in Zimbabwe that Blair won't entertain [...]I do also know you can't just go bombing every country into oblivion either

Especially not ones that have no strategic value or resources...!

and that violence has to be a last resort.

But the violence against Iraq was *NOT* the last resort!

Nor can you enforce a western belief system on non-western countries.

I have never said that we should.

Abuses by US forces in the †œwar on terrorââ‚Ã⠀šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ� have not been confined to Abu Ghraib; punishment of those involved or responsible has been inadequate; and torture is also used by the Iraqi security forces."

And those involved have been, and are being punished for that. [/quote]

The little people have been made scapegoats and the people who really gave the orders (however they might have phrased them) have got away with it and, as it says, the *new* Iraqi security forces are using methods that sound very similar to those used by Saddam et al that were supposed to have been *eliminated* when we invaded!

I think its naive to think the Iraqi Security Forces would not abuse prisoners rights

I think it's hypocritical in the extreme to suggest that people would want to keep Saddam in power where he and his cronies could abuse prisoners rights and then suggest that it is somehow *acceptable* for the "new" security forces to go and do exactly the same thing!

I think whatever the US/UK/ISF have done in Iraq absolutely pales in comparison to what Saddam, Uday and Qusay did.

Torture and abuse of prisoners rights are *not* acceptable in *any* (so called) civilised nation, no matter that "well it's not as bad as what they did, so that's ok"!!!

Like I said before, I didn't know Gulf war 2 if Iraq had banned weapons, but I did know what Saddam, etc was upto. I support the war on that principal, and like I said at the start of this thread, I would vote to remove a fully-disarmed Saddam again, if I had to.

Sorry, who was it who said "Nor can you enforce a western belief system on non-western countries."? Yet now you are saying that because *we* believed what he was doing was unacceptable, it was *RIGHT* for us to enforce our beliefs on him!

That is just sheer, sickening hypocrisy.

[punky]

Most of these posts are going into the same old moral justification, which we have been through, ad nauseam, so I am going to ignore anything which doesn't realte to Goldsmith's report, or the UN up to then.

Originally Posted by Graham

France disagreed with a proposition to pass a resolution justifying an invasion. That does *not* mean they approved of what Saddam was doing.

They can't have it both ways. They can't disapprove of Saddam, but then refuse to do anything about it.

But the violence against Iraq was *NOT* the last resort!

How long do you think its acceptable to give diplomacy a try? 12 years? How much longer?

Moving on, I can't let you just accuse me of being a hypocrite, but i'm taking it into PM, rather than putting it in this thread.

Calm down dears, it's only a Current Affairs thread (said the pot calling the kettles black!)

Could I quietly mention Hans Blix and the state of his WMD investigation at the time of the proposed 2nd resolution. To justify military action, you have to justify threat, which in terms of citizens external to Iraq did not exist. The appalling human rights record of the baathist regime is not one to be ignored (but let's not forget our and the Americans previous support for it). Regime change was a righteous goal, but the means used to achieve it much less so, not just because of the death toll caused by the conflict but the wider damage to relations in the Middle East. There appears to have been an immutable plan to invade rather than await the outcome of Blix's investigation and no real desire to achieve a wider consensus which could have reduced the death toll - particularly in the post Saddam era - and created a more stable world than we have now.

[punky]

I have always said the war was badly handled, the 2nd resolution would have been better, for one reason as you said Andy, it would have helped create a more stable world (although that would be limited, as the UN hardly carries any weight or respect in that area of the world). But that leads us back to the question, is it legal, or justified to go ahead without it. With the second resolution the it would have mean relations between the coalition and the rest of the world wouldn't be so bad, but I stand by what I said, that the second resolution isn't compulsary.

Originally Posted by punky

I have always said the war was badly handled, the 2nd resolution would have been better, for one reason as you said Andy, it would have helped create a more stable world (although that would be limited, as the UN hardly carries any weight or respect in that area of the world).

I was thinking more that we needed to carry more Arab opinion as well as others in the Western world, rgather than it being about respect for the UN.

But that leads us back to the question, is it legal, or justified to go ahead without it. With the second resolution the it would have mean relations between the coalition and the rest of the world wouldn't be so bad, but I stand by what I said, that the second resolution isn't compulsary.

I think from what's been revealed it was not clear cut; legal opinion was, shall we say, divided. And that is what should have been explained to Cabinet, Parliament and oiks like us, not least because the logic being given for intervention was not regime change (no threat to us or, say, Israel) but WMD (whooooh, scary). Those two inter-related facts are the salient ones for me. We went in to war on limited if not deliberately misleading information which is unacceptable in a democratic society.

[punky]

Originally Posted by andyl

I was thinking more that we needed to carry more Arab opinion as well as others in the Western world, rgather than it being about respect for the UN.

Well I think generally Arabs have about as much respect for the UN as I do.I wouldn't have though it would made a difference there, but throughout Europe and middle to west Asia anyway,

not least because the logic being given for intervention was not regime change (no threat to us or, say, Israel) but WMD (whooooh, scary).

That is like point 3 of 22 of how badly it was handled. If it was me, and the WMD intelligence was extremely shakey (reports on that vary), I would have just pushed the humanitarian aspect, even though if I did, the war would have even less support. Exagerating can be construed as lying, and lying always comes back out to haunt you. Nothing can ever be covered up that well in this fay and age.

I am with you on that aspect though, that is wrong to be sent to a war on a lie. I don't expect politicians to be whiter-than-white, and a little exageration here-and-there is need to make things a bit more glossy, but exagerating so far out of context as to portray a lie was wrong. It isn't so bad for me, because in the end, I got the result I wanted, that Saddam is in prison and Uday/Qusay are dead. If I was against the humanitarian aspect (like some are) i'd feel pretty cheated and quite rightly so.

Originally Posted by andyl

Excellent post BB.

I tend to agree with Andrew Marr's analysis that the Government made it much worse by not disclosing this document much earlier. One of the big questions to emerge is the style of Government pursued by Blair and following Mrs T's lead - ie, he knows best. To not provide the Cabinet with all the evidence on an issue of such importance beggars belief. The fact that the Attorney General's deputy resigned over this issue also speaks volumes.

Meanwhile this secretive and manipulative govt continues with such idiocy as ID cards. I know this takes us into new territory - but,I wouldn't trust Blair not to abuse such a system on the evidence of the handling of this issue.

Good point Andy

The fact that no one actually questioned the advice also speaks volumes according to the interveiw with Hewitt on PM today...

Originally Posted by Chris T

Worthy though these issues are, they are a bit of a side-show in the context of the announcements made over the last couple of days. Let's retain a focus here: The Attorney General talks to the PM privately in very cautious terms, then 10 days later the Attorney General tells Parliament, in strident terms, that he belives all is legal and above board.

Some (principally Andrew Marr, who when push comes to shove is a Blair sympathiser) have tried to suggest that the former was just the unpublished musings of the AG, a work in progress and not his final conclusions, whereas what he said 10 days later is his settled view. Frankly this simply doesn't wash - well not with me anyway. Goldsmith underwent something of a Damascene conversion in the intervening period and I would dearly like to know how that happened, and whether the fact that Tony B. Liar sent to him on the 15th to make clear that as far as he was concerned, everything was legal, was significant. Subtext: "Fall into line, Goldsmith"?

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

[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.

Originally Posted by punky

They can't have it both ways. They can't disapprove of Saddam, but then refuse to do anything about it.

But that's *NOT* what they were saying! They were objecting to America and Britain invading and disarming Iraq by force (or engaging in regime change or whatever the current excuse was at the time!)

How long do you think its acceptable to give diplomacy a try? 12 years? How much longer?

As long as necessary.

Moving on, I can't let you just accuse me of being a hypocrite, but i'm taking it into PM, rather than putting it in this thread.

Answered in PM.

[BBKing]

They can't have it both ways. They can't disapprove of Saddam, but then refuse to do anything about it.

Only if you believe that the only choice was destabilise international law or leave Saddam in power. This is grossly simplistic and wrong. No one lives forever, after all.

Another interesting point - Lord Goldsmith's original highly hedged and conscienscious legal advice of the 7th March came out on the same day as Hans Blix' third report from Iraq after he'd gone back in in December 2002. The third report stated that Iraq was being more and more co-operative, and had started destroying missiles and by the way we haven't found any WMDs where you said they'd be.

The previous reports had complained about obstruction by the Iraqis *and* the fact that Western intelligence agencies had frequently given false leads to Blix, leading to wild goose chases. In other words Blix was doubting the quality of intelligence, and asked for more time to search. Let's apply logic

The evidence of the weapons inspectors was key to Goldsmith's legal opinion

Goldsmith presumably hadn't read the third report which stated that Iraq was co-operating when he was weighing the evidence (unless he dashed a 13 page document for the attention of the Prime Minister in a couple of hours, which top lawyers don't do)

Blair and Goldsmith had 10 days to read it. Blix asks for more time.

Having read it, Goldsmith then stands by idly while ministers state unequivocally and categorically that the war is legal because there is unequivocal evidence of non-compliance, even though Blix reports increasing compliance, that there is categorical evidence of a growing WMD programme even though there is evidence of the opposite.

Given that Blix is now forced out of Iraq for his own safety in the forthcoming war, is it any wonder that it looks very much as if his report was ignored, the legal caveats from Goldsmith were ignored and the very real possibility that Iraq would be found to have no WMDs at all would be ignored. Do you like being led by people who ignore truths that would avoid war, or do you prefer being led by people who are willing to ignore the truth to go to war?

Incidentally, as far as France is concerned, Goldsmith is explicit that no court would find that France or any other Security Council member would be acting unreasonably in vetoing a second resolution. So that's that argument knackered then.

Anyway, I suggest we all read the full 13 pages. Not often we get interesting stuff like this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...472450,00.html

At the end of the day this does not clear up the issue of if the war is legal or not. It is focusing on advice and frankly we knew all this already, the timing of all this means that it gets a lot more time and anger but this does not prove Blair lied, it does not prove the iraq war was illegal. Even if it was classed as 'illegal' it is still muddy waters. This is a big and difficult issue and Iraq was in breach of the UN resolutions, the intelligence that Blair received is available online and despite constants attacks on this issue no one has proved blair lied.

The important thing is if you believe the War was right or not. If you dont then you can say so on may 5th. 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.

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

[Xaccers]

Whether the outcome of the war is good or not doesn't matter if parliment and the public were lied to.
I support the general outcome of the war, that an oppressive regime was removed from power (even though according to the UN that's illegal), but that doesn't stop me demanding the truth behind what was said which lead us to our present position.