US told UK Attorney General to alter....
Find a Conversation
| Sun, 02-29-2004 - 12:21pm |
legal advice on Iraq war.
Blair's in the hot seat again.
http://www.sundayherald.com/40318
The attorney general initially told Tony Blair that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal without a new resolution from the United Nations and only overturned his advice when Washington ordered Downing Street to find legal advice which would justify the war.
The devastating claim will be made by eminent QC and Labour peer Baroness Helena Kennedy in a television interview today.
It is one of a series of attacks which put Blair under renewed and increasing pressure to reveal full details of the legal backing for the war against Iraq.
Lawyers, including one from Cherie Blair’s legal chambers, Matrix, will demand improved compensation and an inquiry into the deaths of Iraqi civilians killed by British troops, which could raise the spectre of the government being forced to disclose its advice on the legality of the war.
It is widely believed that the government’s reluctance to do this was behind its decision to drop all charges against GCHQ whistleblower Katherine Gun last week.
The environmental group, Greenpeace is also demanding access to Lord Goldsmith’s advice in order to defend 14 activists due to appear in court in connection with anti-war protests carried out last year.
Former cabinet minister Clare Short continued her relentless attack on Blair when she described the way attorney general Lord Goldsmith’s “truncated opinion authorising war appeared at the very last minute†as “very oddâ€.
Together, the new developments signal that the legal case for the allied invasion of Iraq without a specific UN instruction authorising them to do so has become the most dangerous threat to the Prime Minister and is unlikely to go away.
Kennedy’s claims, which will be made this morning in an interview on GMTV, are arguably the most damaging. Her position as a member of the highest echelons of the legal community will add credence to her claims that the British government could find only two senior lawyers in the UK prepared to back the case for the invasion.
Baroness Kennedy points out that Lord Goldsmith was a commercial lawyer with no experience of international law and initially relied heavily on the advice of lawyers within the Foreign Office in the months before the war. It is widely believed that advice overwhelmingly warned against invading without a UN resolution.
She claims that when Washington was told of this advice their response was succinct: find a new lawyer.
Goldsmith then turned to Professor Christopher Greenwood of the London School of Economics, who was known to support the invasion. Greenwood was already on record as stating: “It would be highly desirable to have a second UN resolution because that puts the matter beyond serious question. But if that’s not possible, I would support the use of force without the resolution.’’
After consulting Greenwood, Goldsmith told the cabinet an invasion could take place within international law without the new UN resolution.
However, sacked Labour MP George Galloway insisted yesterday that Goldsmith warned ministers that his advice relied on the accuracy of intelligence information that Saddam posed a serious threat to British interest – information which has since been discredited.
Baroness Kennedy says Blair is being “haunted†by the fallout of a war “that will just not go awayâ€.
Clare Short yesterday said Foreign Office lawyers disagreed on the legality of war and that senior officials in Whitehall were “worried that they were being asked to prepare for illegal actionâ€.
After her disclosure that she had seen transcripts of material taken in bugging operations conducted inside the office of the secretary general of the UN, Kofi Annan, it remained a possibility she would either be prosecuted under the Official Secrets Act or even be thrown out of the Labour Party.
Yesterday the chairman of the Labour party, Ian McCartney, appeared to rule out any party censure. “I’m not going to make her a martyr,†he told BBC Scotland.
Lord Alexander of Weedon QC, a leading peer and lawyer, yesterday described the content of Lord Goldsmith advice as “the most important legal opinion of the last 50 yearsâ€. He said without it the war would not have gone ahead and 20,000 Iraqis would not have been killed.


Sounds like the decision was made and they were looking for justification.
I wonder if this is pursued in England, will this country find the backbaone to pursue a impeachment--if GWB gets re-elected.
She claims that when Washington was told of this advice their response was succinct: find a new lawyer.
Not surprising considering the 'my way or the highway' mentality of the current administration.
This whole thing is just amazing...
But I wouldn't pin much hope on any impeachment proceedings if Bush is re-elected. Politicians are political creatures (DUH, but I can't think of a better way to put it!). If he is re-elected, it will be seen as a popular mandate for his policies and procedures to continue. The only scenario under which I could see any support for impeachment would be similar to the one that took place in the 2000 (s)election when the vote was so close and it wasn't clear that a mandate had been given.
One hopes that people will look beyond all the campaign rhetoric to the actions of the candidates. Bush is so adept at "denial and deception" (the phrasing the White House used to describe Saddam Hussein turns out to fit Dubya rather nicely) that focusing on the key issues may be difficult. And Tony Blair's wiggles and woes will be seen by Yanks as being a uniquely British problem. The weight that was brought to bear on him by Washington will be waived.
Edited 3/1/2004 10:48:48 AM ET by gettingahandle
Gettingahandle
Ignorance is Nature's most abundant fuel for decision making.
<>
IMHO the US was involved in the spying also. It is good America remains oblivious to this administrations motives and tactics--NOT