Blair forced to release memo that points up the illegality of Iraq War

[BurtWorm]

People are being too quiet about this outrageous story.
:grr:

(I know it's not news to most of us, but what is it, exactly, that makes these leaders so unafraid to lie us into war? It's that they know for a fact they'll get away with it. We let them.)


http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/29/international/europe/29britain.html?pagewanted=print&position=

Blair, on Defensive, Releases a Secret Memo on Iraq War
By ALAN COWELL

LONDON, April 28 - In an about-face, Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday published the full text of the advice he received on the legitimacy of the Iraq war, as he tried to defuse a dispute that has derailed his re-election strategy just one week before British elections.

Parts of the 13-page document, written by Lord Goldsmith, Britain's attorney general, on March 7, 2003, were made public Wednesday by the BBC and Channel 4, prompting a new furor about whether Mr. Blair misled the nation by depicting the war as unequivocally lawful.

The full document showed that while Lord Goldsmith said in public on March 17, 2003, that the imminent invasion of Iraq was unambiguously legal, the private advice he gave to Mr. Blair 10 days earlier showed far greater concerns about the legal consequences of going to war.

"There are a number of ways in which the opponents of military action might seek to bring a legal case, internationally or domestically, against the United Kingdom, members of the Government or U.K. military personnel," the document said, as it laid out the legal landscape. It concluded with a discussion of the level of force permitted by United Nations resolutions concerning Saddam Hussein's 1990 invasion of Kuwait.

[BurtWorm]

1. 6 reasons war "may be" illegal according to the Goldsmith memo

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=346070&in_page_id=1770&in_a_source=&ct=5


1. In law, there was a strong argument that it was the job of the United Nations - not Mr Blair - to rule whether Iraq had defied the UN's order to disarm.

Goldsmith set out how it may be judged that it was the function of the UN Security Council, not an individual country such as Britain or America, to decide if Iraq was in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 and giving it a 'final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations'. Goldsmith pointed out that although Mr Blair could in theory make the decision, a court could decide otherwise.

2. Goldsmith questioned whether Britain could attack Iraq by using UN Resolution

The legal advice explained why the resolution's warning of 'serious consequences' if Saddam continued to flout the UN fell crucially short of permitting military action. The exact wording had important implications. It did not say 'all necessary means' - UN terminology for war, used when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.

3. Goldsmith urged caution about going to war without a second UN resolution.

He said Mr Blair could go to war without one, but it would be much 'safer' and desirable to secure a second resolution giving specific approval to military intervention.

EDITED BY ADMIN: COPYRIGHT

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

4. "The US Congress had given Mr Bush special powers ..."

To their shame and infamy.

[wtmusic]

5. Re: #6

Doubtful the war was legal, or even constitutional, under US law.

USC Article IV:

"all Treaties made...under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land..."

which would presumably include the UN Charter:

"All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state," (Chapter II) except under the condition of "armed attack" (Article 51).

[Moderator]

12. BurtWorm

Per DU copyright rules
please post only four
paragraphs from the
copyrighted news source.


Thank you.


DU Moderator

[okieinpain]

2. well you know bush is not the uk's fault. blair got elected fair and

square. why he's running around following bush is beyond me. and of course if blair loses then the uk ends up with there own bush. but to be honest I kinda wish blair gets his ass handed to him.

[BurtWorm]

3. He's going to win the election.

Labor is too far ahead in the polls. The Tories are even more unpopular than Blair and the Liberal Dems are, unfortunatelty, not likely to surpise. Of course, he could lose in his own district, but that's doubtful. Or he could be forced to resign after he and Labor win.

[BurtWorm]

6. Breaking: Goldsmith claims released memo was a forgery

:wtf:

http://news.scotsman.com/latest.cfm?id=4481455

Police to Probe Forged 'Memo to Blair' on Iraq War

By Andrew Woodcock, PA Political Correspondent


The memo, dated just over two weeks before the start of the Iraq War in 2003, appears to show the Attorney telling Tony Blair that military action may well turn out to be illegal.

It suggests that war in Iraq could pave the way for “planned future conflicts that have been discussed, like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia”.

But Lord Goldsmith’s office this afternoon denounced the document, sent to media newsdesks, as “a complete forgery”.

A spokesman said: “A document has been sent to newsdesks today claiming to be a minute from the Attorney General to the Prime Minister, dated 1 March 2003.

[FreedomAngel82]

7. Wha?

So what happened with that?

[BurtWorm]

8. It may be strategic disinformation

because I can't find confirmation of it anywhere. Why is it in the Scotsman but no other British paper? :wtf:

[muriel_volestrangler]

11. That's the first I've heard of a March 1st memo

So I think all the media must have realised it was fake before using it - and dismissed it as disinformation from one side or the other. All the talk has been about the 7th March document.

[Just Me]

13. Whoah! WHAT is going on?

Weird.

[jayfish]

9. "Nightline"

outlined the difference in media demeanor at * and Blair's press conferences. The British media are not being quiet about this. To bad we can't see more of it on these shores.

Jay

[Zhade]

10. Of course it's silent, even here.

Some people, here and in the party, would have to explain why Dems voted for an illegal war if this were talked about more. Hell, they can't even piss and moan about the Republicans voting for war without being hypocrites for ignoring that Dems voted for the same exact IWR.

So consider this kicked, in honor of that cognitive dissonance.

[MontageOfFreedom]

14. Not a surprise at all. I'm glad europe will seek justice.

It's high time for the governments of europe to seek justice for the made-up manufactured stories, for 9/11, for all the right-wing distortions and so called missions for god.

Not far behind that is the U.S, I'm afraid that time is coming.