London Observer: Blair blow as secret war doubts revealed

[Jack Rabbit]

From the London Observer
Dated Sunday April 24

Blair blow as secret war doubts revealed
· Attorney General's advice on Iraq is leaked
· He cast doubts on legality of invasion
By Gaby Hinsliff, political editor

The Iraq war was thrust dramatically into the election spotlight last night after long-sought government legal advice, cautioning that the invasion could be illegal, was leaked.
The document appears to confirm for the first time that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, had serious reservations about the legality of the conflict, only to change his mind as British and US troops massed on the border of Iraq ready to invade.

The government has steadfastly refused all calls to publish the document, and its sudden disclosure is bound to have an explosive effect on the election campaign, reawakening the prickly issue of voters' trust in Tony Blair, to the dismay of Labour MPs struggling to overcome anger over the war.

The 13 pages of legal advice that Goldsmith drew up on 7 March, according to a report in today's Mail on Sunday, warned that Blair could be in breach of international law for six reasons ranging from the lack of a second United Nations resolution to UN inspector Hans Blix's continuing search for weapons.

You're busted, Tony. Report to The Hague. Do not pass Go. Do not collect $200.

[KlatooBNikto]

1. The Imperialist gene in a Briton dies hard. The chance to kick some wog

ass was too irresistible.

[PurityOfEssence]

2. Somewhere over the cauldron in the deep recesses of the White House

dreams of turning this into another backdoor victory for the junta bubble amid muffled glee: arm-twist Tony into backing an imperial war of conquest, then let this be his downfall so the extremely marginalized conservatives can regain power.

Controlling others is one thing; controlling others who already agree with you is MUCH better.

Always look to the dark side; they do...

[grytpype]

3. Recommended!!!! This is huge news!!!!

"The 13 pages of legal advice that Goldsmith drew up on 7 March, according to a report in today's Mail on Sunday, warned that Blair could be in breach of international law for six reasons ranging from the lack of a second United Nations resolution to UN inspector Hans Blix's continuing search for weapons.

"Ten days later, he apparently changed his mind, delivering a summary to Blair declaring the war was legal - the cue for the invasion."

Holy living shit!!!!!!!! This is huge!!!!!

[Jack Rabbit]

5. Not only is it huge in Britain

It means that there was a perfectly good legal opinion to the effect that the war was illegal for want of an enabling resolution from the UN Security Council. That would apply not only to Mr. Blair, but to any other national leader who went to war over this matter. You know who I mean.

Blair will maintain a majority in Parliament. The Tories act like they just don't want to win very badly. However, some members of Parliament are drawing up an impeachment resolution againt the Prime Minister.

He's not the only one who should be impeachec over the invasion. And you know who I mean.

[leftchick]

30. I hope this means the UK could get their troops home soon

I can only imagine the anger their families must feel over this travesty. I know it will be years before US troops come home.

[ECH1969]

4. And yet Labors numbers

have been going up anyway.

[Freddie Stubbs]

23. Perhaps UK votes have other higher priorities

:shrug:

[zanne]

34. Do they have any choice?

I'm not being sarcastic; I'm just ignorant of the British electoral system. I realize they could vote for a Conservative, but what other choice do they have?

[Hatalles]

51. I'm confused about this also...

Are the two top competitors (Blair and the Conservative leader) both pro-war candidates?

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Yes; though Howard is now saying that Blair lied about the intelligence

The third party, the Liberal Democrats, did oppose the war (as did some rebel Labour MPs, and a very few Conservatives).

[Hatalles]

54. Does the Liberal Party have a shot?

[muriel_volestrangler]

57. Not of being the largest party

if there were a very large swing against Labour, it would just about be possible to get a hung parliament - where no party has an absolute majority of seats. In that case, the Lib Dems would be able to put pressure on Labour to change a few things (such as getting rid of Blair). But by far the most likely result is a Labour win.

[Jacobin]

6. I thought this happened a year ago

The leak that their head legal guy said he thought the invasion was illegal.

Is this from 2004?

[CJCRANE]

26. Yeah, I heard this before too.

Don't think it'll make much difference. Labour will get in because they're good on the economy + everyone expects Blair to step down at some point after the election and let Gordon Brown be PM.

[Paddy Maynooth]

7. Danish Government Lawyers removed Preconditions for Invasion of Iraq

Great news!

It has long been suspected that Bliar's government commissioned the legal advice that suited its intent to participate in the invasion. The case against whistleblower Katharine Gun was fairly abruptly dropped when her lawyer declared that he would demand access to Goldsmith's advice as an indispensable aspect of her defence.

Similarly, there is evidence that the Danish government persuaded its legal office to modify its opinion to suit the warmongers' purpose. See article below.

Charlotte Aagaard was subsequently awarded Denmark's most coveted journalism prize for her work in uncovering and publishing stuff like this.

Aagaard had the advantage that she could get at the stuff relatively easily under the Danish freedom of information act, so she didn't have to wait for a whistleblower to release the dynamite documents. But, of course, there is a certain advantage to having a whistleblower with a very fine sense of timing. :)

Come in, Tony! Your time is up!

Best,
Paddy.



Legal Scam in Denmark:
Danish Government Lawyers removed Preconditions for Invasion of Iraq
by Coilín Oscar ÓhAiseadha

www.globalresearch.ca 27 November 2003

The URL of this article is: http://globalresearch.ca/articles/OHA311A.html

In the weeks and days immediately before Denmark decided to participate in the invasion of Iraq, the government's lawyers deleted a number of preconditions which they originally thought should be fulfilled in order to justify Denmark's participation in the invasion. Danish legal experts say there is every sign that the government demanded that the preconditions be removed in order to facilitate participation in the war.

This is the conclusion of an article by journalist Charlotte Aagaard in the Danish newspaper Information, 26 November 2003.

...

Read the rest of the article here:
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/OHA311A.html


END.

[Selteri]

9. Wow, it's all starting to fall down like a giant house of cards.

Too bad these cards have been put together by people who don't mind using bodies to stack them up. Looks like the conservatives all over are making mistake after mistake and now they'll be paying for them.

Good.

[BadNews]

14. TB no conservative. Labor Fall=Torry Gain

I would like to see Blair booted by his own party. Not by a general election. Torries in control is a greater problem. They are the real Brit version of Repukes.

[Henny Penny]

46. Welcome to DU Paddy!

:toast:

[Montauk6]

8. Don't worry, TB...

I'm sure they've got the interior design team going over the final touches to your swank new office over at the Carlysle Group.

[AuntiBush]

13. Is that right...

So much talk about Diebold, Halliburton, Enron one forgets about the ultimate... the Carlysle Group.

TB & W swank together, should sink together as well.

Thanks!

[lovuian]

10. Bottomline the War was ilegal and then No WMD was the

clincher!!!

In other words Britain and US went to War ilegally with the yes vote of many many other lawyers and learned men & women

FOOLS FOOLS FOOLS!!!

[LynnTheDem]

18. The vast majority of the world's international lawyers said NO NO NO

to invading Iraq; ILLEGAL ILLEGAL ILLEGAL was their OVERWHELMING response.

If anyone is saying "many" or "most" or even "several" lawyers said it would be legal, they are rightwingnut LIARS. Period.

[against all enemies]

11. Is Great Briitain a member of the world court? I know Bush refuses to

be a member but I'll be happy to see them bust Blair instead.

[LynnTheDem]

19. Yeppers.

Which is what bLiar was warned about; he could end up in the dock at the Hague.

And so he should.

[understandinglife]

12. "You're busted, Tony. Report to The Hague." And, your buddy Bu$h....

....and his neoconster buddies are going to be delivered by US to the same court -- you can count on it.


www.missionnotaccomplished.us (The.Day.WE.BEGIN...........)

[autorank]

15. Excellent post Jack Rabbit! I delight in Blair's/Labour's disgrace.

I hope Labour loses...I hope they lose big...I hope they ALL sit up late at night for the rest of their lives wondering why they didn't do the right thing and throw Blair out for LYING and probably worse, e.g., war crimes.

Oh, ask Labour, Tony's a war criminal but wow, that economy is good or wow, the Torrie's are so awful. So the fuck what! Blair lied and enabled * and was known to have done this shortly after the invasion.

Lets hope for a 'hung Parliament' with the Liberal Democrats as 'king makers.' They will stick it to Blair and drive a hard bargain to join a Labour coalition.

[Nothing Without Hope]

16. YES! Recommended. And for news on MORE illegality read about US TORTURE

and kidnapping in this stunning article by a respected British investigative journalist. This is the latest of a series of articles he has written in this area, mostly for the Times; part of the story was broadcast by the BBC in February.

But did WE see it??? You know the answer.

Read the article and spread the word:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1740193&mesg_id=1740193

[bvar22]

17. It is time to PUBLICLY REVIEW...

the illegal aspects of the bush* War on the Iraqi People.

I remember a long list of (pre-invasion)lawyers that believed the Invasion was against International Law AND US Constitutional Law. IIRC, this was published in many newspapers. I'm going to look for it tomorrow.

[Zhade]

20. GOOD.

Whoever leaked that is a HERO!

DOWN WITH BLAIR!

[VegasWolf]

21. Blair and England, America's lapdogs. If they are good they will

a cookie.

[evolvenow]

22. kick, Time is up for the War Criminal Club. Karma for killing innocent.

[Rainscents]

24. BUSTED!!! You are going down!!!

[halobeam]

25. Now THATS a good bedtime story!

good night.:pals:

[slay]

27. The fact that the government will not publish the document speaks volumes

This is the key to stopping these bastards. They need to be called out for the criminals they are - constantly and loudly.

[TyeDye75]

28. The Observer thinks its there duty

to try and rescue another shoddy Tory campaign

[T_i_B]

29. Bad news for the Tories too!

You see, the Conservative party also supported the Iraq war. This news is also bad for them.

Iraq is the silent issue at this election. Neither main party wants to talk about it. Only in Bethnal Green is it getting any attention from the politicans. Hopefully it will blow up in their faces though.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=191x3035

[Henny Penny]

47. I think they were just keeping their powder dry...

"Charles Kennedy demanded that the legal advice given to Mr Blair be published after a newspaper claimed to have new evidence about the war's legality.

If not, voters would be "perfectly entitled" to view the election as a referendum on the war, he said. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4478023.stm

and...
"Conservative leader Michael Howard has said the election gives Britons a last chance to pass judgment on Tony Blair.

Mr Howard, speaking on Breakfast with Frost, said he believed Mr Blair lied to win elections and over the Iraq war. "

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4478029.stm

[T_i_B]

58. Maybe it's just me...

...but I do feel that maybe they should have raised the issue sooner. As it is all we are hearing about in this election is Tory immigrant bashing, not Iraq. Besides, the Iraq issue is getting associated with the likes of George Galloway for many people.

As such Kennedy may have a mountain to climb to get people to vote on the war. I can't help but feel that the Lib Dems might have left it too late.

[Henny Penny]

59. you could be right...

but it is hard to know. If they raise it too soon, then it will perhaps have died down by election day....

As it is, the press cannot avoid asking Blair some very tough questions on the campaign trail, and he is bound look very rattled. (Not a good look for a PM).

Perhaps they could ask "Will Cherie be defending you in the Hague? Or will you be conducting your own defence a la Milosevic???"

[muriel_volestrangler]

60. But many people will start voting by post this week

and they think that might be 15% of the vote in this election (assuming we don't get fraud on a massive scale), so it does look as the Lib Dems have left it to the last minute.

I think Kennedy may have taken the "no negative campaigning" too far - it's meant he's held back on the direct criticism of Blair (for instance, Howard is calling Blair a liar, but Kennedy isn't), when it's the untrustworthiness of Blair that is the central issue (and that extends further than Iraq - eg Blair's promise not to increase university tuition fees, which he broke within a couple of years).

[Henny Penny]

61. sounds like a lot of those postal votes are already sewn up...

"A survey in The Times found that postal vote applications overall had almost trebled since 2001. In some key marginals they had risen by almost 500%."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4446957.stm

[D-Notice]

31. If anything they're doing it

to help the Lib Dems & any anti-war Independent candidates

Here's the actual article from the Mail on Sunday

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

[SympatheticBrit]

32. I'm not sure

Daily Mail are the most extremist right newspaper UK has, bar it's clone the Express. I think they just want to beat on Blair, no more no less.

[D-Notice]

33. I meant

that the Observer are doing it for the Lib Dems :-)

[MisterP]

50. don't shoot the messenger: Blair is thoroughly repulsive and cannot

be forgiven so that precious widdle New Labor can have its arse saved by raising the bugaboo of the Tories

[TyeDye75]

62. I totally agree

Im not trying to defend Blair (perish the thought)

I just wanted to make the point about the Observers bias

:thumbsup:

[muriel_volestrangler]

63. The Observer is not a Tory paper

It it somewhere between New Labour and the Lib Dems in the political spectrum.

[D-Notice]

35. Proof Blair was told war could be ruled illegal

From the Mail on Sunday

Main points (see article for more detail):

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.

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

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

4. Mr Blair was warned of the risks of relying on the earlier UN resolution used to eject Saddam from Kuwait.

5. Goldsmith drew attention to UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and his search for weapons of mass destruction.

6. He explained that the American government's position on the legality of the war did not apply in Britain.

[Ironpost]

36. Amazingly we're not seeing or hearing much of Blair of late.

For a while you couldn't read the paper or listen to the news on tv without seeing or hearing of him, what happened. Is he getting worried about criminal court as he should, same as our pResident.

[DoYouEverWonder]

38. He's been busy campaigning

and is set to win a third term.

Keep in mind that in England, Blair is a member of the Labor (more liberal) Party. The only other choice would be to elect a Tory and that would much worse.

[D-Notice]

41. Over here a lot of

people can't tell the difference between Labour & the Tories.

The only difference I can find is that the Tories are honest enough to admit they're a bunch of bastards, while everyone knows Labour are bastards, but won't admit it

You could say that because of this the Tories are preferable as they're (more) honest... :o

[DoYouEverWonder]

42. Sounds like

the Repugs and the Dems here. In many instances, there's not much difference between the two.

[Jack Rabbit]

44. If I were British, I would vote Liberal Democrat

Tony Blair knew that there was no solid evidence to support the claim that Saddam was a threat even to his weakest neighbor. If he didn't know, he should have. Instead, he willfully led his nation into a war behind Bush and the neoconservatives based on their lies. It doesn't really matter if Blair was fooled or if his motives were as cynical as a neconservative's or if he had some delusions about playing along in order to have some moderating influence over Bush. The invasion of Iraq was an unprovoked war of aggression against a sovereign state without legal authorization from the UN Security Council. It was a war crime on its face.

Voting Labour in order to retain Blair as Prime Minister in light of this is unconscionable. Some might say that risks a Tory government. So what? One party promoting colonialist intrigues predicated on lies is as bad as another.

Realistically, there is no chance of defeating Labour. Labour's current majority is simply too large. Blair will be retained. However, we may place our hopes that revelations such as these will force the hand of dissident MPs and open impeachment proceedings against the Prime Minister.

It is also interesting that, largely as a result of Blair's leading Britain into war behind Bush, the British public has lost in confidence in Blair's integrity. Most surveys taken in Britain support the view that Labour's victory in the upcoming elections will be one with a reduced majority and even then it will be a vote of confidence in the leadership not of Blair but of Gordon Brown, who will almost certainly become PM when Blair steps aside before the end of his third ministry.

[Kagemusha]

37. So Goldsmith told Blair.. the truth?

What a horrible thing for him to have done!

...Not really kidding here. To tell Blair the unvarnished truth, then cover it up for two entire years, has set an ill precedent in that ancient nation.

On edit: Wow. This is bad. Very, very bad. Every bit as bad as I imagined. It is not for the first time that I hate being right. :(

And no that report to Parliament was not purported to be a summary. It was purported to be THE ENTIRETY OF THE LEGAL ADVICE.

[dkofos]

39. Does that mean we will see Blair at the Hague soon??

[Kagemusha]

40. Parliament hasn't had a crack at Blair yet.

And until one is elected, none shall... the ICC only goes after people who aren't punished by their home countries. (Lt. Gen Sanchez now applies, for example.) It's easier to nab a Brit than an American here since the Brits have weaker conventional forces and would find invading The Hague more difficult though not impossible.

At any rate, if this pans out, the government certainly mislead Parliament and the House of Lords for that matter when that idiot (whose name I forget) said that the 'summary' (which they claim was never purported to be a summary) was in fact the entirety of the legal advice, which beggared disbelief. And more specifically, Blair mislead the Commons when he made his case for war by massively and blatantly misrepresenting the legal advice.

[emad]

43. Goldsmith told Blair 'war could be illegal'

By Francis Elliott, Severin Carrell and Andy McSmith
24 April 2005


Tony Blair was at the centre of a fresh row last night over the legality of the war in Iraq, as a new report claimed the Prime Minister was warned that the conflict breached international law.

As opposition politicians and senior Labour figures intensified pressure on Mr Blair to publish in full the advice given by the Attorney General, the issue of the war in Iraq was propelled to the centre stage of the election campaign after a Sunday newspaper alleged that he was told the military action could be ruled illegal.

Today's Mail on Sunday claims to list six "caveats" that were stripped from a summary of the advice published 10 days later on the eve of a crucial parliamentary debate on the war.

They reportedly included warnings that only the United Nations could judge whether Saddam Hussein had defied its order to disarm and that Mr Blair could not rely on the American position that the war was legal.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=632492

[izzybeans]

45. British slang is so misleading. I thought blow referenced something

else entirely. I thought Blair's "secret" doubts led to a cocaine binge or something.}(

[Jack Rabbit]

48. Blow is not slang used this way

From Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary via Dictionary.com.

Blow

n. 1: a powerful stroke with the fist or a weapon; "a blow on the head".

[izzybeans]

49. I know.

What I typed "is something that's been described as a joke" (David Cross) I suppose I won't be telling many more today.

Thanks.

[rucky]

53. Of course he knew the war was illegal!

I could've told him that

[SlavesandBulldozers]

55. international law?

bahahhaha. . . international law. . . that's a good one! i'll have to remember that. I'm sure * has people working in shifts to get to the bottom of this disaster.

[Jack Rabbit]

56. Guardian Utd (April 25): Opposition goes on Iraq offensive

From the Guardian Unlimited (UK)
Dated Monday April 25

Opposition goes on Iraq offensive
No 10 accused of lying over war advice
By Michael White, political editor

The Liberal Democrats and Conservatives launched a two-pronged attack on Tony Blair yesterday, accusing the prime minister of having undermined trust in politicians and lied over the Iraq war.

Labour was last night braced for the prospect that the war could be a key issue in the closing stages of the 2005 election campaign, after hints that the attorney general's legal advice will finally become public.

The Mail on Sunday published a summary of what it claimed was Lord Goldsmith's 13-page assessment of the legal pros and cons of the US-led invasion in March 2003, which Mr Blair backed with British troops despite widespread domestic opposition.

Blair aides dismissed the claim. "There's nothing new to this story," said one. But it prompted both main opposition leaders to renew their attacks. Charles Kennedy demanded that the government bow to the inevitable and show how it became involved in what he called "a dreadful error, carried out on the basis of the wrong arguments and for the wrong reasons".

Read more.

[cal04]

64. Attorney General's warnings

The UN - not Mr Blair - had the power to rule that Iraq was not complying with its resolutions.

The Attorney General argued that in law, there was a strong case that the United Nations should determine whether Iraq had ignored the demand that its weapons of mass destruction be destroyed.

The paper is said to have warned that the UN security council, not individual members, should decide whether Iraq had complied with Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002. The resolution itself confirmed that Iraq "has been and remains" in material breach to earlier resolutions, but says further breaches would be reported to the security council "for assessment".

UN Security Council resolution 1441 might not be sufficient legal basis for war.
Lord Goldsmith expressed caution about going to war without a second United Nations resolution.
Mr Blair was told there were risks in relying on previous UN resolutions to justify military action.
Lord Goldsmith pointed to the latest work by Hans Blix and his team of UN weapons inspectors.
Lord Goldsmith said that American statements on the legality of war were not applicable in Britain.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/story.jsp?story=632729

[paineinthearse]

65. Coverage by the Independent

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=632492

Goldsmith told Blair 'war could be illegal'
By Francis Elliott, Severin Carrell and Andy McSmith
24 April 2005
Goldsmith told Blair 'war could be illegal'


Tony Blair was at the centre of a fresh row last night over the legality of the war in Iraq, as a new report claimed the Prime Minister was warned that the conflict breached international law. As opposition politicians and senior Labour figures intensified pressure on Mr Blair to publish in full the advice given by the Attorney General, the issue of the war in Iraq was propelled to the centre stage of the election campaign after a Sunday newspaper alleged that he was told the military action could be ruled illegal.

Today's Mail on Sunday claims to list six "caveats" that were stripped from a summary of the advice published 10 days later on the eve of a crucial parliamentary debate on the war. They reportedly included warnings that only the United Nations could judge whether Saddam Hussein had defied its order to disarm and that Mr Blair could not rely on the American position that the war was legal.

The disclosure prompted renewed calls for the Government to publish the full advice, to settle once and for all the question of whether Mr Blair misled the country into going to war. Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary who resigned in protest as Leader of the Commons over the war in Iraq, said: "Many weeks ago, I urged the Government to publish the advice and said at the time that it was inevitable that it was going to become public. I deeply regret that the Government has left this issue to fester, to the point at which it has become public at the worst possible moment for the Government.

"They should've done it in their own time, and made a clean breast of it." "I resigned when it became evident that we couldn't get a second UN resolution. If this is indeed what the Attorney General said to the Prime Minister at the time, perhaps he should've resigned too." The fresh claims over the war's legality come at a very critical stage in the campaign. Michael Howard accused Mr Blair of telling lies yesterday as the fight for votes enters a bitter final phase, saying that he could "not even tell the truth" over the war.

more.....