PDA

View Full Version : Fact check: Was the Iraq war legal?


Ali
04-28-2005, 06:24 AM
THE CLAIM
A newly published document suggests that Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had concerns about whether the Iraq war was legal just 10 days before parliament decided to go to war.

The opposition parties suggest that the fact that this was not disclosed means that MPs, the cabinet and the public were misled.

BACKGROUND

The UN Security Council unanimously passed resolution 1441 on 8 November 2002.

It gave Iraq "a final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations" and warned Iraq of "serious consequences" if it did not.

It based its authority on resolution 678, which had authorised the war to remove Iraq from Kuwait in 1990 using "all necessary means" to "enforce peace and security," and resolution 687 (passed after the 1991 war) which placed continuing obligations on Iraq to eliminate weapons of mass destruction, and indicated that force against Iraq could resume if they breached these conditions.

As a result, weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix went into Iraq, while 250,000 US and UK troops moved to Iraq's borders.

On 24 February 2003, the UK and the US began an attempt to persuade the Security Council to pass a further resolution authorising the use of force, and US Secretary of State Colin Powell presented evidence that Iraq still had weapons of mass destruction.


On 7 March 2003 Hans Blix told the UN Iraq had taken significant steps to comply with its disarmament obligations, but said there were still unanswered questions. He subsequently said that if asked he would have requested more time to complete his task.

On 17 March 2003 the UK, the US and Spain abandoned their attempt to secure a second UN resolution authorising force, citing the opposition of the French and their threat to veto any such resolution.


THE FACTS

In his advice of 7 March 2003 (on whether the war was legal without a further UN resolution) the attorney general said "the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear."

A "key question" was whether there was need for an assessment of Iraq's conduct. If so, "it would be up to the Council to make it."

"The safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force."

However, if the government chose to rely on 1441 alone, a "reasonable case can be made" that it is capable "in principle if reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution" but this "argument is controversial. It is not widely accepted among academic commentators" but "I disagree with those commentators and lawyers."


However, he added that if relying on this argument, "we would need to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation."

And in light of the latest reports by the weapons inspectors, "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."


He also warned that any military action "must have as its objective the enforcement of the terms of the cease-fire" and "must be a proportionate response to that objective, i.e. securing compliance with Iraq's disarmament obligations."

He added that "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."

However, when the attorney general presented his advice to Parliament and the cabinet in a note published on 17 March, his legal advice was unequivocal.

"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 had changed?

British attempts to get a second UN resolution authorising force had collapsed.

And the military and civil service asked him to "express a clear and simple view" on the legality of military action.


So on 15 March, the attorney general wrote to the prime minister and received written assurance that "it is indeed the prime minister's unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of its obligations."

In a statement released on 28 April 2005, Lord Goldsmith said his 7 March 2003 advice was an outline of the arguments, not a conclusion.

"Far from showing I reached the conclusion that to go to war would be unlawful, it shows how I took account of all the arguments before reaching my conclusion," he said.


THE CONCLUSION

The attorney general did not technically change his advice, because he did not come to a firm conclusion on 7 March.

But he expressed far fewer doubts on 17 March that the war in Iraq was legal without a second UN resolution - after Britain failed to get one through.

There is no doubt that if his earlier advice has been disclosed at the time, it would have made it harder for the government to garner support for the imminent invasion of Iraq.


And it is no accident that resolution 1441 itself was ambiguous about whether military action was legal without further resolutions. It had been deliberately crafted that way in order to gain unanimous UN support.

The fact that Britain fought so hard to try to obtain a second UN resolution makes it clear that the government would have preferred, for both political and legal reasons, more unequivocal support from the international community for the war.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/issues/4492443.stm

Ali
04-28-2005, 06:53 AM
The very basis of Labour's election campaign has been to urge voters not to see it as a referendum on Tony Blair but as a stark choice between two potential governments.


It has also been to work on the basis that any damage likely to be done to the party's chances by the war had already been inflicted, and the issue could be kept on the back burner.
Traditional core issues such as the economy and the public services could, Labour believed, be driven to the top of the agenda to their electoral advantage.

Despite the most robust defence possible from Mr Blair and ministers, notably Gordon Brown, the fact he has finally been forced to publish the full legal advice on the war from the attorney general threatens to blow that strategy to pieces.

It has already seen Labour losing vital control of the campaign agenda, not for the first time during this contest.

And the remaining few days of this increasingly high-octane campaign are likely to see the prime minister's integrity and his much-criticised style of government remaining at the top of that agenda.

It is precisely Tony Blair's allegedly presidential style of government and leadership - previously used to Labour's advantage in campaigns - that is now being played down, even abandoned.

Where he was once seen as a guaranteed vote winner for Labour he is now seen by many as a liability.

Sofa style

And the circumstances surrounding the decision to go to war only seem to further reinforce opposition claims that the prime minister ran a presidential-style administration which failed to properly involve the Cabinet and the Commons in the gravest of decisions.

Worse, the opposition parties claim he even misled both those groups to get his way over Iraq.


It echoes the concerns raised by previous inquiries into this whole affair which, in Lord Hutton's case, raised an eyebrow over the lack of minute taking at some meetings and, in Lord Butler's report, spoke of a sofa style of decision making.
There will be much argument about the detail of the attorney general's advice and whether he really changed his mind, or what the Cabinet was told.

There will also be the persistent claim, already made by Michael Howard and Charles Kennedy, that had this full advice been seen at the time, MPs and even possibly the Cabinet would have vetoed the war.

The prime minister has again defended both his decision to go to war, and the way he made it.

And he has been given the most powerful backing possible for his honesty and integrity on the way he handled the decision-making process by his Chancellor Gordon Brown, who bluntly said he would have done exactly the same.

That is a highly significant development in this affair and will undoubtedly do much to swing some doubters behind Mr Blair and his leadership style.

But one thing seems certain - that this issue is back with a vengeance at just the time the prime minister could have done without it.

Less brutal

Mr Howard may have some difficulty capitalising fully on it because of his continuing support for the war and removal of Saddam Hussein.

But he is driving a powerful, last-lap campaign concentrating on the absolute necessity of cabinet government and, most important, honesty from the prime minister.


Mr Kennedy's Liberal Democrats are less brutal in their attacks on the prime minister's honesty.
But they have accused the prime minister of making the wrong political judgement then compounding it by justifying it in a "misleading way".

And the party has the potential advantage of consistency in its opposition to the war and the way the prime minister took Britain into it.

This is all highly dangerous territory for the prime minister, even though he and his ministers insist the full advice actually supports their case that the attorney general deemed the war properly legal.

It has pushed Labour onto the back foot in the last days of the campaign.

And, while no one will know for sure until 6 May, it may still have the power to swing votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492463.stmLabour's fucked and the Tories haven't a hope, either, they would have rushed into Iraq just as quickly as Labour did... more so, in fact. Everybody know this.

Nobody in the UK wanted the fucking war in Iraq and the Lib Dems are the only party who would have waited for the UN to decide (I hope!).

Maybe they have a chance, at last (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4488429.stm)!!! Everybody must be sick and tired of Labour and Tories slagging each other off. Labour can't keep trying to scare people into voting for them to 'keep the Tories out' because the Tories are third in the race, now. People need to vote Lib Dem to keep fucking labour out!!!

Lib Dems are focussing on the Right Things, like education, while Labour and Tories focus on each other.

Dare we hope?

open letter
04-28-2005, 10:36 AM
Labour's fucked and the Tories haven't a hope, either, they would have rushed into Iraq just as quickly as Labour did... more so, in fact. Everybody know this.

Nobody in the UK wanted the fucking war in Iraq and the Lib Dems are the only party who would have waited for the UN to decide (I hope!).

Maybe they have a chance, at last (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4488429.stm)!!! Everybody must be sick and tired of Labour and Tories slagging each other off. Labour can't keep trying to scare people into voting for them to 'keep the Tories out' because the Tories are third in the race, now. People need to vote Lib Dem to keep fucking labour out!!!

Lib Dems are focussing on the Right Things, like education, while Labour and Tories focus on each other.

Dare we hope?
labour and the tories only foucus on each other so they don't have to say to much about there polices

and the lib dems are the only real alternativecause all the other partys are to small ;)

go lib dems woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (y)

Ali
05-02-2005, 08:05 AM
labour and the tories only foucus on each other so they don't have to say to much about there polices

and the lib dems are the only real alternativecause all the other partys are to small ;)

go lib dems woooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo (y)You are voting BNP, I assume? Or UKIP?

Racist tw@.

Ali
05-03-2005, 02:04 AM
Water under the bridge.And that water keeps on flowing.Blair faces Iraq families' anger (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/4507485.stm)
The wife of the latest British soldier to be killed in Iraq has blamed Tony Blair for his death.
Guardsman Anthony Wakefield was killed by a roadside bomb on Monday. His wife, Ann Toward, said Mr Blair should not have sent him to war.

Other relatives of troops killed in Iraq warn they intend to take legal action over the war.

Mr Blair on Monday night told ITV he had given up trying to persuade people over the war but defended his honesty.

He told the Ask the Leaders programme: "I've had this election campaign where there have been some pretty fearsome attacks on my character and I'm not going to stand here and beg for my own character.

"People can make up their minds whether they trust me or not and that's their decision on May 5."

Mother's anger

Mr Blair defended the decision to go to war in the wake of a new leaked memo indicating he was looking at ways to justify war with Iraq in July 2002 - eight months before the conflict.

He said the memo in the Sunday Times had been taken out of context, as shown by the fact he had later gone to the United Nations to secure a new resolution and given Saddam Hussein a "last chance".

Earlier, Mr Blair sent his "profound condolences" to Guardsman Wakefield's family.

The soldier was the 87th UK troop to who have died in the Iraq conflict. His widow, Ms Toward, told the ITV News Channel her message to Mr Blair was: "You should not have sent the troops over, you should not have done that."

If it was not for Mr Blair's actions, "my children would still have their father today and I really do blame him for that," she said.

Court action

Ms Toward saluted her husband as "a very brave man, he was outgoing, he was funny, he had a sense of humour, he was really fun to be with, he was a great father as well".

Relatives of other British troops killed in Iraq will serve notice to Downing Street on Tuesday of their plans to take the government to court.

The court action, which is being backed by the Stop The War Coalition, will outline the group's legal case against the war under the European Convention of Human Rights.

A coalition spokesman said there were also plans for a private prosecution against the prime minister.

"We have been told by senior barristers that we have a very strong legal case," he said.

The relatives travelling to Downing Street will include Rose Gentle, the mother of Fusilier Gordon Gentle, who was killed by a roadside bomb in Iraq.

Legal argument

The government last week published the attorney general's full legal opinion on the war after parts of it were leaked to the media.

Ministers insist Lord Goldsmith's advice did not change from the document, dated 7 March 2003 and which contained caveats, and his unequivocal backing of the war a fortnight later.

They argue the war was justified on the basis of United Nations resolutions dating back to the 1990 Gulf War.

Labour has tried to keep the election campaign away from Iraq to focus on the economy and public services.

But the Liberal Democrats continue to stress their opposition to the conflict and the Conservatives say Mr Blair lied about the case against Iraq.