Home

The legality of the Iraq war revisited *UPDATED*

Posted May 26th, 2006 by Davide Simonetti
in

Newly released documents obtained under the freedom of information act confirm America’s role in convincing attorney general, Lord Goldsmith that war with Iraq was legal despite his earlier secret advice to Tony Blair on March 7 2003. We already knew that ten days later he decided that the war was legal after all, and various leaks aroused suspicions that America played a part in his change of mind.

It was a complaint made by The Independent and upheld by the information commissioner, Richard Thomas which forced Lord Goldsmith to publish the information.

"When Government chooses to publish a statement which was intended to be seen as a clear statement of the legal position the Government was adopting, there is a public interest in knowing the extent to which it had been based on firm and confident analysis and advice, or was at least consistent with what had gone before."

Independent article

However, only a “narrative” (yes that word again, the smokescreen used to avoid proper scrutiny) was issued. Richard Thomas did not compel Lord Goldsmith to release other documents, such as minutes, e-mails and memos, which would have better illustrated the political pressures brought to bear on the attorney general between the 7th and 17th March.

His office issued a "narrative" of the attorney general's thinking over the 10-day period that confirms that he hardened his opinion that an invasion would be lawful following requests from the chief of defence staff - and others - to confirm it.

Usually legal advice to the government remains confidential, but in the wake of leaks, and finally Downing Street publication of the March 7 advice, Mr Thomas agreed to FoI requests that further information be made available, although he described the situation as "exceptional".

The Guardian

Arguments from the White House, particularly from John Bellinger, a senior lawyer to George Bush and legal adviser to the National Security Council are said to have finally convinced Lord Goldsmith "after further reflection" that military action could be taken without the need for a second UN resolution and that three existing resolutions including 1441 could be used as justification instead. This view was reinforced by then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw and Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s ambassador to the UN at the time.

All this, of course, reopens the argument about the legality of the war, which the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan, said was "unlawful", just when Tony Blair is in Washington trying to justify the invasion with his fellow lame duck, George Bush. Tony Blair is now being accused of yet another cover-up and MPs are demanding the release of all documents involved.

Ex-Defence Minister Mr Kilfoyle MP said the statement suggested Lord Goldsmith had changed his advice.

"It appears to be at the behest of the Americans," he told the BBC News website.

"I'm sorry but I think he should have consulted international experts, not those who had a stake in this.

"I think it illustrates that the Americans had a decisive input in the final advice sent by the attorney general."

BBC article

Lord Goldsmith also asked Tony Blair for confirmation that he thought Iraq had again broken UN resolutions opening the way for fresh criticisms that the Prime Minister mislead the attorney general and applied political pressure in order to get the legal decision he wanted.

Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Attorney-General, said: “The critical thing that emerges is the impact of a written assurance from the Prime Minister that there was a material breach of 1441. It seems to confirm . . . that the Attorney-General was misled by the Prime Minister.”

Times article

Former international development secretary, Clare Short is now calling for a high-level judicial inquiry citing the importance of emails during the Hutton whitewash inquiry.

Leading barrister Philippe Sands QC, said that “it seems to be confirmed that Britain was taken to war on the basis of decision-making that was largely informal and oral, without records being kept,". The Independent is also dissatisfied with the disclosures and is threatening to take its complaint to the Information Tribunal.

Equally important, this once again raises the issue of just how independent a nation Britain actually is. Earlier this month Jack Straw lost his job as Foreign Secretary and there is a suspicion (denied by the Prime Minister) that it was the Bush administration that demanded his removal after his comments about an attack on Iran being “inconceivable” and “nuts”.

*UPDATE*

Hat-Tip to Byrne in the comments for this.

An enforcement notice has been lodged re this.

See here.

Also, see here for further info.

I had two immediate

On May 26th, 2006 Tom Welsh (not verified) says:

I had two immediate reactions on reading this story:

1. Surely the UK's Attorney General can arrive at a legal opinion by reading the text of UN resolutions. They mean what they say, nothing more and nothing less. To go and be briefed by people who say they contributed to drafting the resolutions risked polluting Lord Goldsmith's mind with considerations that he should not have taken into account. On the other hand, it is consistent with New Labour's apparent belief that what matters is, not the letter of the law, but what government ministers want. (Hence their willingness to pass legislation that penalises people retrospectively for doing things that were quite lawful when they did them). Computer programmers have a scornful acronym for this kind of narcissistic thinking: "DWIM". This stands for "do what I mean (not what I say)".

2. Surely launching a war of aggression halfway round the world on the basis of a wholly false belief cannot be justified. Otherwise, all strictures against such wars lose their force. "Well, I felt we really needed to invade the USSR because I was convinced they were about to attack us without warning". (OK, that one may have been true). How about "We had to attack the USA because we were convinced it was about to bomb us?" (OK, that one would probably be true too - I give up).

Many of us have long felt

On May 26th, 2006 KeirHardiesCap (not verified) says:

Many of us have long felt that an independent GB no longer exists, with our foreign policy being driven from Washington and Blairt being used as a foreign minister for the US interest - paid for by us mugs, of course. Before the illegal invasion and occuption of Iraq Baron Goldfalcon went to the US for what? legal advice! They said 'Your Attorney, we got him there in the end'. He KNEW the plans were illegal and the Merkins were just playing political games but he put his loyalty to special secret interests before the interests of his actual employers, the British people. He is clearly going to be a continuing danger to us if he is the arbiter of what is legal in GB. Our very own Gonzales, in fact. He went to Israel to investigate the murders of two Brits last week. Did they 'Get him there' also? He has no credibility left AT ALL.

False belief = delusion.

On May 26th, 2006 KeirHardiesCap (not verified) says:

False belief = delusion. Multiple false beliefs = mental illness.

"Well, I felt we really

On May 26th, 2006 vervet says:

"Well, I felt we really needed to invade the USSR because I was convinced they were about to attack us without warning".

As a further example there is the 'domestic' version - "I thought he was going to hit me officer, so I hit him back first."

Hands up all those who think plod would accept that excuse and let us off with a caution ...

An enforcement notice has

On May 26th, 2006 Byrne (not verified) says:

An enforcement notice has been lodged re this.

See here.

Also, see here for further info.

Thanks for that, I'll update

On May 26th, 2006 Davide Simonetti says:

Thanks for that, I'll update the article.