Rat Faced
04-27-2005, 07:54 PM
The Iraq Facts
26 April 2005
Unpublished legal advice haunts Blair
"It's not a question of changing his mind. The legal advice of the Attorney General was very clear."
Tony Blair, 25 April 2005
The legality of the Iraq invasion returned to haunt the Government when a newspaper published what it said was the full advice given by the attorney-general in the weeks before war.
According to the paper, Lord Goldsmith's full advice on 7 March 2003 raised doubts about the legality of going to war, giving six reasons why it could be open to challenge.
The advice was written just ten days before he gave a written answer in the House of Lords which stated that the war would be legal.
The warnings in the leak revolve around United Nations resolutions that date back to the 1991 Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
The UN Resolutions
The first, resolution 678, passed in November 1990, authorised the use of force against Iraq unless it complied with earlier resolutions requiring it to withdraw from Kuwait after the invasion of August 1990. The resolution authorised the use of "all necessary means" to ensure compliance.
After Iraq was driven out of Kuwait, the terms of the ceasefire were set out in 1991 in resolution 687, and included the verifiable destruction of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
A decade later in November 2002, UN Resolution 1441 held that Iraq was in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations and warned of "serious consequences" if violations continued.
This is what it said:
"Holding Iraq in 'material breach' of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a 'final opportunity to comply' with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)."
UN Resolution 1441
"By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face 'serious consequences' as a result of continued violations."
UN Resolution 1441
"The Council ... further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide ... a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons&.Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment."
UN Resolution 1441
The resolution did not go as far as the 1990 resolution, and did not include the concept of "automaticity" where a breach by Iraq would trigger the use of force. Instead the Security Council would convene immediately once a breach was reported.
Commons analysis
A House of Commons library analysis of resolution 1441 in November 2002 spelt out the arguments over the options open to member states if the Security Council did not agree on enforcement action.
It said: "An argument might be made out ... that Iraq's persistent breaches of the ceasefire terms invalidate that ceasefire, and that a return to the use of force authorised in Resolution 678 might be countenanced.
"Prior to the adoption of Resolution 1441 a range of views had been expressed as to the reactivation of Resolution 678.
"Some commentators argued that the objective of removing Iraq from Kuwait had been secured, and therefore the authorisation of the use of force was no longer current.
"Others argued that the ceasefire was conditional and if Iraq breached those conditions then the authorisation of the use of force had to be seen as live."
Attorney-General's advice
Lord Goldsmith's advice, as given in the Parliamentary written answer of 17 March 2003 follows the second argument, taking the view that Resolution 1441's statement that Iraq was in breach of Resolution 687 did revive the authorisation to use force granted in Resolution 678.
The leak to the Mail on Sunday of his earlier advice, which the government has refused to publish, suggests he was less convinced of that argument 10 days earlier According to the paper, he argued it could be difficult to revive authority for the use of force under Resolution 678 because that applied to the removal of Iraq from Kuwait, not an invasion of Iraq.
He is also said to have warned that Resolution 1441 on its own was not enough justification because its warning of "serious consequences" fell short of "all necessary means"- the legal definition needed to authorise war.
Lord Goldsmith is also said to have raised four other issues:
There was a case that it was for the Security Council to decide if Iraq had made another breach, not member states.
It would be safer to have another resolution in addition to 1441
The legal position in the US - where Congress had given President Bush authority to act without UN backing - did not apply in Britain.
UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix were still ongoing.
Source (http://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/quote.jsp?id=128¶sStartAt=0)
The facts are that on 7th March the Attorney-General issued a 13 page document filled with caviots and saying that it was unsafe to assume the war was legal.
The Military told the Government that it would not go, unless there was a clear legal case.. the 13 page document mysteriously shrank to a 9 paragraph statement... and this is what was shown to the Military, the Cabinet and Parliament.
For me, its now immaterial whether it was legal or not.. its happened and we cant turn the clock back.
However the fact remains that in effect the Prime Minister of this country took the decision of going to war, without giving the full legal advice to his Cabinet or the Military.
To elect someone with such meglomaniac tendancies for another term is for me a non-starter... It saddens me therefore that he will be re-elected, albeit people will be voting for our Chancellor to keep his job, and not Blaire.
26 April 2005
Unpublished legal advice haunts Blair
"It's not a question of changing his mind. The legal advice of the Attorney General was very clear."
Tony Blair, 25 April 2005
The legality of the Iraq invasion returned to haunt the Government when a newspaper published what it said was the full advice given by the attorney-general in the weeks before war.
According to the paper, Lord Goldsmith's full advice on 7 March 2003 raised doubts about the legality of going to war, giving six reasons why it could be open to challenge.
The advice was written just ten days before he gave a written answer in the House of Lords which stated that the war would be legal.
The warnings in the leak revolve around United Nations resolutions that date back to the 1991 Gulf War after Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait.
The UN Resolutions
The first, resolution 678, passed in November 1990, authorised the use of force against Iraq unless it complied with earlier resolutions requiring it to withdraw from Kuwait after the invasion of August 1990. The resolution authorised the use of "all necessary means" to ensure compliance.
After Iraq was driven out of Kuwait, the terms of the ceasefire were set out in 1991 in resolution 687, and included the verifiable destruction of chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
A decade later in November 2002, UN Resolution 1441 held that Iraq was in "material breach" of its disarmament obligations and warned of "serious consequences" if violations continued.
This is what it said:
"Holding Iraq in 'material breach' of its obligations under previous resolutions, the Security Council this morning decided to afford it a 'final opportunity to comply' with its disarmament obligations, while setting up an enhanced inspection regime for full and verified completion of the disarmament process established by resolution 687 (1991)."
UN Resolution 1441
"By the unanimous adoption of resolution 1441 (2002), the Council instructed the resumed inspections to begin within 45 days, and also decided it would convene immediately upon the receipt of any reports from inspection authorities that Iraq was interfering with their activities. It recalled, in that context, that the Council had repeatedly warned Iraq that it would face 'serious consequences' as a result of continued violations."
UN Resolution 1441
"The Council ... further decided that, within 30 days, Iraq, in order to begin to comply with its obligations, should provide ... a complete declaration of all aspects of its programmes to develop chemical, biological and nuclear weapons&.Any false statement or omission in the declaration will be considered a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, and will be reported to the Council for assessment."
UN Resolution 1441
The resolution did not go as far as the 1990 resolution, and did not include the concept of "automaticity" where a breach by Iraq would trigger the use of force. Instead the Security Council would convene immediately once a breach was reported.
Commons analysis
A House of Commons library analysis of resolution 1441 in November 2002 spelt out the arguments over the options open to member states if the Security Council did not agree on enforcement action.
It said: "An argument might be made out ... that Iraq's persistent breaches of the ceasefire terms invalidate that ceasefire, and that a return to the use of force authorised in Resolution 678 might be countenanced.
"Prior to the adoption of Resolution 1441 a range of views had been expressed as to the reactivation of Resolution 678.
"Some commentators argued that the objective of removing Iraq from Kuwait had been secured, and therefore the authorisation of the use of force was no longer current.
"Others argued that the ceasefire was conditional and if Iraq breached those conditions then the authorisation of the use of force had to be seen as live."
Attorney-General's advice
Lord Goldsmith's advice, as given in the Parliamentary written answer of 17 March 2003 follows the second argument, taking the view that Resolution 1441's statement that Iraq was in breach of Resolution 687 did revive the authorisation to use force granted in Resolution 678.
The leak to the Mail on Sunday of his earlier advice, which the government has refused to publish, suggests he was less convinced of that argument 10 days earlier According to the paper, he argued it could be difficult to revive authority for the use of force under Resolution 678 because that applied to the removal of Iraq from Kuwait, not an invasion of Iraq.
He is also said to have warned that Resolution 1441 on its own was not enough justification because its warning of "serious consequences" fell short of "all necessary means"- the legal definition needed to authorise war.
Lord Goldsmith is also said to have raised four other issues:
There was a case that it was for the Security Council to decide if Iraq had made another breach, not member states.
It would be safer to have another resolution in addition to 1441
The legal position in the US - where Congress had given President Bush authority to act without UN backing - did not apply in Britain.
UN weapons inspectors led by Hans Blix were still ongoing.
Source (http://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/quote.jsp?id=128¶sStartAt=0)
The facts are that on 7th March the Attorney-General issued a 13 page document filled with caviots and saying that it was unsafe to assume the war was legal.
The Military told the Government that it would not go, unless there was a clear legal case.. the 13 page document mysteriously shrank to a 9 paragraph statement... and this is what was shown to the Military, the Cabinet and Parliament.
For me, its now immaterial whether it was legal or not.. its happened and we cant turn the clock back.
However the fact remains that in effect the Prime Minister of this country took the decision of going to war, without giving the full legal advice to his Cabinet or the Military.
To elect someone with such meglomaniac tendancies for another term is for me a non-starter... It saddens me therefore that he will be re-elected, albeit people will be voting for our Chancellor to keep his job, and not Blaire.