Clegg's illegal Iraq war

Yesterday's news, but worthwhile. Some excerpts:

Clegg threw the government's position concerning the legality of the Iraq war into confusion when, at the end of heated exchanges with Jack Straw, foreign secretary at the time of the war, Clegg said: "We may have to wait for his memoirs, but perhaps one day he will account for his role in the most disastrous decision of all: the illegal invasion of Iraq."

Sir Gus O'Donnell, the cabinet secretary, wrote to Sir John Chilcot on 25 June to allow the inquiry to publish more documents relating to the legal advice. The most significant of these documents was a note on 30 January 2003 by the then attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, to Tony Blair. In the note Goldsmith wrote: "I remain of the view that the correct legal interpretation of [UN security council] resolution 1441 is that it does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the security council."

Goldsmith famously changed his mind on the legality of the war in March 2003 after Admiral Sir Michael Boyce, the former chief of the defence staff, demanded a clear undertaking that military action would be lawful. Boyce feared that British forces could face legal action unless the invasion had legal cover. On 7 March 2003, after visiting Washington, Goldsmith told Blair that a new UN resolution may not be necessary, although invading Iraq without one could lead to Britain being indicted before an international court. Ten days later Goldsmith ruled that an invasion would be lawful.

Post Comment

Comments (15)

PERSINA KSINA stafylia.dead.
tRy to translate that for our english spoken friends here.
u really believe , that blair and bush needed a lawful readon to invate iraq???
or that any country in the whole world would ever take legal action against USA or G.BRITAIN???
rolling on the floor laughing rolling on the floor laughing rolling on the floor laughing comfort comfort handshake cheers
wave D
What I found chilling was the way truth and the law is bent to facilitate perceived national interests. We more or less know it... but it's good to see it portrayed in the mainstream media.
yes nowvery mad
go back then and try to see what they were written and said.
media is a very useful mean to exercise ur propaganda.cheers
Well, I'm not into any of the legal mumbo jumbo....

But I do read a fair bit of history....

And I can't think of many invasions that required the lawyers' nod of the head.dunno
good day billy.u do get up early,dont u??bowing tip hat
Morning Alf.

Errr.... just a handshake will do thanks mate.laugh

Yeah.... best part of the day, the morning. No hassles, no disruptions and the mind's thinking right.cheers
Bill, they need legal cover, as certain countries and courts do take international law a bit more seriously than others.

It also makes a difference to admit that something is illegal, even if only to inform public opinion, which plays no role unless it has reached a critical mass. That's what journalism is all about. Same as exposing crimes and corruption, which can be quite effective in shifting policy.
I dont know much about politics in the UK, but it sounds to me like a classic case of CYA. (Cover your a**)
'illegal invasion'?
Go0d term, at least they admit it!
As i far as i kn0w, iraq is n0t a part of United nati0n eversince the conflicts started or before that,,,therefore US has no rights to interfere in iraq's war unless they ask for it or other country that was involve with it ask for assistance or any help fr0m US..
Apparently, US,sent Military forces, to minimize d c0nflicts for d sake of civilian people especially the childrens and sick ones as a request of WHO and UNESCO..
So i think its necessary to make it legal,,,
The irony is that the reason war was waged upon iraq was the suspected weapons of mass destruction(WMDs). Colin Powel showed media the satelite imagery. The whole saw that. Eventually, no weapons were found. Just to remove a doubt millions of humans died.

I still remember the sight in London where over 1 milliom people led a procession against the war.

Sadly, over the course of history, humans have killed other humans for petty material interests. Sadly again, there seems no end to it. What a waste of this short life we have.
They convinced themselves that SCR 1441 authorizes a military operation to Iraq... if that was the case, then the war would formally be legal, yet immoral (false evidence). But SCR1441 doesn't allow military use. The point is that the war was both immoral and illegal.
Im juz confused, why do they need to make it legal??? Why n0t end it up all??
Or mybe its like in my thoughts that in legallity they can control the whole country(iraq) and their all economy and resources???

Hence, d good of legality,,is that, the families and relatives of wounded,injured,or dead victims can run after their benifits from d governments!.??
only defencive wars can be "moral and legal".but human's history is just a chain of wars.all our history is based on wars results.
and noone ever needed to have a second thought on declairing a war.
human greed mixing with hypocricy and hate ,always drives people on fighting each other.the great greek philosopher heraclitus said: war is father of everything , meaning this love to kill other humans is like the driving force for human progress thru the centuries.peace cheers
If a war is illegal, then the UN has a responsibility to stop it, by any means.
un is just a great joke,they cant stop even a drunk driverand u want them to stop a a war???
and miss all the fun?????rolling on the floor laughing cheers
Post Comment - Let others know what you think about this Blog.

About this Blog

by Unknown
created Jul 2010
Last Viewed: Sep 28
Last Commented: Jul 2010

Feeling Creative?

Post Comment back to top