Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by armourer, Apr 27, 2005.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Now everyone knows Blair s a lying tosser.
Why? Saying a court 'might conclude' something is just stating the obvious. I could say the court 'might conclude' that Michael Jackson is innocent, as indeed it might. Does the fact I say that, mean that he is innocent?
Awol, your right in your example, but the fact that goldsmith wrote:
Sort of tells us that good old tone chose to ignore his legal advice and lied to us that there WAS legal precendent to go to war without a 2nd resolution (A decision which he was not entitled to make, as it is ultimately the UN's right to say yay or nae)
Awol, I think this is what I mean:
It's obvious that attorney general did change his mind.
Goldsmith was saying that a Second Resolution would have removed all doubt, which was true. I'm not sure how that converts into saying the UN would have voted against the war.
It seems to me that you are discussing insignificant details. Really mr.Blair had only two options:
1. To support mr.Bush and lie.
2. Stand on side of France and Germany and be honest.
Mr.Blair could be of course more careful. His 45min. claim was absolutely needless. And this advice... Being a barrister himself what could mr.Blair expect? Anyway the advice would be very unclear (lawyrs are skilled in creation of such a leagal puzzles). Why on Earth mr.Blair requested the advice?
Main problem of mr.Blair: he sounds too many words. Later or sooner your words would become your enemies.
I didnt say they woudl. Just that blair et al had no legal powers to say that under the existing UN resolution (1441) that Saddam and his cronnies were in breach of the conditions laid down in 1441; ergo they had no legal right to base their decision to go to war on that presumption.
Had they just had the balls to say, look this guy is a tyrant, we want him out and want democracy in, i would have had so much more respect for him. But as it happens, he jumped from excuse to excuse like a rat on a sinking ship to try and justify the war. One minute it was about WMD's, then that was discredited, then it was for contravening 1441, then it was a humanitarian mission to rid iraq of saddam, and then right at the last minute blair said that he was willing to forget all that as long as he gave up his WMD capabilites (which were already in question). Therefore, all his previous arguments which he made with such vigour and personal backing, were just ready to be discarded.
Lets just put it this way. Blair was desperate to follow W into iraq, and he knew the excuses were thin on the ground. He also knews that good old W was gonna send in the cavalry regardless. Therefore, tony strived to find a good enough excuse to warrant following W into the sandpit. He didnt give a shit about the moral or ethical side, he was just ready to sell his mother down the river just to get a piece of the action.
the matter is Bliar said the AG did not change his mind or show any doubt, the evidence now shows otherwise.
He lied to us, we here on this site knew that but hopefully the rest of the electorate now see this and vote/not vote accordingly
Bliar promised Dubya in 2002 that he would support him in an Iraq venture.
Bliar made a case for war based on weapons of mass destruction, outlined in two dossiers. An earlier dossier on Afghanistan had gone down well.
The dossiers claimed to be authoritative and intelligence based. The intelligence was patchy, caveats were omitted, and material was plagiarised from the internet. Key concerns from within the intelligence community were suppressed. In short, they were "sexed up" as propaganda tools.
Bliar tried to get a first resolution in 2002. He got 1441, which meant many things to many people and was an ineffectual compromise. Bliar knew at the time that this was not substantive authorisation for military action.
Bliar tried to get a second resolution. This ran into difficulties in the face of opposition from permanent members of the security council other than the UK and US and in the absence of a clear declaration of a material breach from UN inspectors.
Bliar asked the attorney for advice. The attorney advised that a second resolution was the only legally safe case for war, although that a case could be made on the basis of previous resolutions and "hard evidence" of non-compliance - although this case could be open to challenge. The attorney also advised that failure to obtain a second resolution through an "unreasonable veto" was no excuse for falling back on 1441 and predecessors.
CDS asked Bliar for an unequivocable "yes or no" to the legality of the war. The answer was "yes".
Somewhere in between these events, Bliar decides ("we" = Bliar and the attorney according to Straw this morning) that, as he wasn't going to get a second resolution, another reason for war - that Iraq was in material breach and that the French were employing an "unreasonable veto" - was required. This excuse drew upon the caveatted advice of the attorney that previous resolutions could be used although it flew in the face of the attorney's criticism of the "unreasonable veto" argument and the "hard evidence" of noncompliance appeared to be in Bliar's imagination.
The attorney presented a summary answer to cabinet although no questions were allowed. This had none of the earlier reservations. This formed the basis of the parliamentary answer upon which a vote on war was taken.
The public and parliament and Armed Forces - and his own cabinet - have been misled by Bliar at every turn. If he is elected in one week he will attempt to use the re-election as a vindication of his corrupt actions over Iraq. He will use this as justification for future military interventions based on the same pattern of lies. The Armed Forces cannot trust this man - he sent them into war on the basis of a lie knowing that the unequivocal answer he gave to CDS was misleading and that British troops could end up in the dock. If this wretch is re-elected, and he tries to follow Dubya again, I predict mass civil unrest in this country and resignations and noncompliance with mobilisation orders from the Armed Forces. In other words, a constitutional and political catastrophe. This man cannot be trusted with power and must be dealt a crippling blow next week, in lieu of impeachment and imprisonment in the Tower.
What is the logic here? If there was an unreasonable veto (which the French veto undoubtably was, being an excuse to get one over on the US), surely that justifies falling back on the previous resolution?
Quite possibly true awol, but the thing is that it was not legally Blair (or the AG's) decision to make. Only the UN could rule that previous decisions were enough.
It may be said that we should be able to make the ultimate decision on if we go to war (and in matter so self defence we do), but this is what comes of signing upto international treaties.
A veto can't be unreasonable. That is the whole point of a veto.
Vetos have been used for UN political point-scoring for the last five decades, most often by Russia, China and the US.
Why the big fuss now?
Again, quite true. Just look at how many times the US (and Uk) have vetoed anything contradicting Isreal.
It's just used as a political point scoring system and this time it was our turn to be on the losing side.
There are now suggestions that the request to AG for his opinion was couched in such a manner that it didn't ask if war was legal but what would be needed for us to go to war. Kinda suggests the answer apparently
Precisely. It was point-scoring by the French, not a veto based on the merits of the situation. In other words it was an 'unreasonable veto'.
Separate names with a comma.