You have commented 339 times on Rantburg.

Your Name
Your e-mail (optional)
Website (optional)
My Original Nic        Pic-a-Nic        Sorry. Comments have been closed on this article.
Bold Italic Underline Strike Bullet Blockquote Small Big Link Squish Foto Photo
Britain
Blair was told Iraq war 'illegal': report
2009-11-29
Death by a thousand paper-cuts ...
LONDON — The government's chief legal advisor informed then British prime minister Tony Blair in 2002 that deposing Saddam Hussein would contravene international law, a newspaper reported on Sunday. Peter Goldsmith, the Attorney General at the time, wrote to Blair eight months before the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, but the premier ignored the advice, the Mail on Sunday claimed.

The newspaper said a public inquiry into Britain's involvement in the war was in possession of Goldsmith's letter and he and Blair are likely to be questioned about it when they give evidence next year.
Nothing like prolonging the misery. Why not 2011?
The inquiry heard in its first week that Britain's ambassador to the United Nations at the time, Jeremy Greenstock, believed the invasion was "of questionable legitimacy".
According to whom? The UN? Of course they don't support the removal of dictators. The UN is run by dictators for dictators.
The Mail on Sunday reported that Goldsmith was "gagged" after he tried to dissuade Blair from lending Britain's support to the war.

Goldsmith wrote the letter six days after a Cabinet meeting on July 23, 2002, at which ministers were secretly told that the United States and Britain were set on "regime change" in Iraq, the report said. Goldsmith, who attended the meeting, strongly disagreed and on July 29, he wrote to Blair -- a close friend of his -- on a single sheet of headed notepaper.

In the letter, Goldsmith pointed out that war could not be justified purely on the grounds of "regime change", the newspaper reported. He explained that although UN rules permitted "military intervention on the basis of self-defence", they did not apply in the case of Iraq because Britain was not under threat from Saddam's regime.

Goldsmith ended his letter by saying "the situation might change" -- although in legal terms, it never did, the Mail on Sunday said.
Therefore all good people must stand by, hands in pockets, whilst thugs beat and beggar the innocent, because after all, the good people weren't directly threatened. Have the Brits forgotten their Churchill?
An unnamed friend of Goldsmith told the newspaper that Blair went "beserk" when he received the letter because it undermined his case for war. The friend said Goldsmith was subjected to such pressure by Blair's close inner circle over his advice that he threatened to resign and lost weight.

"He is an honourable man and it was a terribly stressful experience," the friend said.

Goldsmith eventually gave qualified legal backing to the conflict days before the war started in March 2003 in a brief, carefully drafted statement.

The inquiry, Britain's third related to the conflict, is looking at its role in Iraq between 2001 and 2009, when nearly all its troops withdrew. The committee, chaired by retired civil servant John Chilcot, will report by the end of 2010.
Yup, rip the bandage off slowly ...
Posted by:Steve White

#3  I'm sure PM Blair was told many things by many people, that he weighed the evidence and made his decision. Former British Attorney General Goldsmith is still miffed that his was not the advice taken. It's a bit cowardly, though, for Mr Goldsmith to wait over six and a half years to go public with this unimportant bit of information, instead of resigning in a huff at the time. In fact, one can take measure of the importance Mr Goldsmith attached to the decision at the time, that he did not indeed step down, but chose to write a carefully drafted statement giving qualified legal support to the project.

In short, fooey.
Posted by: trailing wife    2009-11-29 20:22  

#2  Don't forget this is the Euros where if a country rejected the EU Constitution instead of ending the process those in power insisted they keep having elections till they got the results they wanted. The arguments are irrelevant when those who believe they should rule have already declared it is or is not. The 'cease fire' that Saddam agreed to at the cessation of hostilities of the first Gulf War were routinely violated making the cease fire null and void except in the convoluted minds of those who opposed any viable action to end the threat. No amount of resolutions or processes would be recognized by those who are bent to rationalizing their support of such a creature as Saddam.
Posted by: Procopius2k   2009-11-29 09:26  

#1  No mention of the umpteen UN resolutions threatening to kick Saddam's ass if he didn't straighten up? Tony should have strangled one of his lawyers as an example to the others.
Posted by: SteveS   2009-11-29 00:29  

00:00