Dutch inquiry finds no legal basis for Iraq invasion

maguire

LE
Book Reviewer
#1
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6984753.ece

'The invasion of Iraq had no sound mandate under international law, according to the Dutch inquiry into the war released this morning.

In a devastating rejection of the position of the British and Dutch governments, the inquiry, led by the former head of the Netherlands' Supreme Court, decided that the United Nations resolutions did not provide a legal basis for the use of force.

Dutch ministers were further criticised in the report of the Davids Commission, which sat for ten months, for using intelligence from Britain and the US that showed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), rather than the "more nuanced" assessment of its own secret services.'

wonder what good ol' teflon tone will say about this in his appearance before the UK inquiry?
 
#2
What the f#@k do they know? Did they have access to all required information and intelligence sources to hold a full investigation? We haven't even finished our investigation which has a lot more access to the people who could say what was going on than the Dutch ever could.

No story in my opinion.
 

napier

LE
Moderator
Kit Reviewer
#4
Its also a bit late
 
#5
maguire said:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article6984753.ece

'The invasion of Iraq had no sound mandate under international law, according to the Dutch inquiry into the war released this morning.

In a devastating rejection of the position of the British and Dutch governments, the inquiry, led by the former head of the Netherlands' Supreme Court, decided that the United Nations resolutions did not provide a legal basis for the use of force.

Dutch ministers were further criticised in the report of the Davids Commission, which sat for ten months, for using intelligence from Britain and the US that showed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction (WMD), rather than the "more nuanced" assessment of its own secret services.'

wonder what good ol' teflon tone will say about this in his appearance before the UK inquiry?
I concur with the Dutch finding. No 'white-wash' there then.

As for 'what good ol' teflon tone' will say, I think 'Plant-Pilot' has said it for him.
 
#6
IIRC the inquiry was done to find out whether the Dutch government 1) had informed parliament properly about the reasons/motives for attacking Iraq and 2) that the information provided a sufficient legal basis to grant political support. It looked at the information which was available at the time to the Dutch government and intelligence services and at the decision making process in parliament. It has nothing to do with other countries or their motives for supporting the war in/against Iraq. It's a national issue.
 
#7
Plant-Pilot said:
What the f#@k do they know? Did they have access to all required information and intelligence sources to hold a full investigation? We haven't even finished our investigation which has a lot more access to the people who could say what was going on than the Dutch ever could.
What the f#@k do 'we' know? Did 'we' have access to all required information and intelligence sources to justify invasion and occupation in the first place. Of course 'we' did. Trouble is, some slimey, deceitful dark-skinned person with a teacloth on his head managed to vanish the bloody evidence to which all 'our' information and intelligence sources pointed to. How dare he!
 
#8
whitecity said:
Plant-Pilot said:
What the f#@k do they know? Did they have access to all required information and intelligence sources to hold a full investigation? We haven't even finished our investigation which has a lot more access to the people who could say what was going on than the Dutch ever could.
What the f#@k do 'we' know? Did 'we' have access to all required information and intelligence sources to justify invasion and occupation in the first place. Of course 'we' did. Trouble is, some slimey, deceitful dark-skinned person with a teacloth on his head managed to vanish the bloody evidence to which all 'our' information and intelligence sources pointed to. How dare he!
You seem to be using the past tense there. The Chilcot inquiry is still ongoing.
 
#9
Plant-Pilot said:
What the f#@k do they know? Did they have access to all required information and intelligence sources to hold a full investigation?
Errr, yes. What information do you imagine they might possibly be missing?

Plant-Pilot said:
We haven't even finished our investigation which has a lot more access to the people who could say what was going on than the Dutch ever could.
I'm not sure what virtue you imagine is conferred on the British inquiry by its being years too late and proceeding slowly, but the idea that gobshites like Blair and Campbell had mysterious sources of additional information that would have provided any legal basis for the invasion beyond the figleaf of UNSCR 1441 is not one that even the most ardently delusional NuLab apparatchik has believed for years now.

Plant-Pilot said:
No story in my opinion.
No surprise, certainly. The illegality of the war has been tolerably obvious for a good long time to anyone with a basic knowledge of LOAC and some familiarity with the conventions of language used in UNSC resolutions. Even Lord Goldsmith managed to get it right first try, and had to be asked to try again before he got the answer Sanctimonious Tone wanted.

All the best,

John.
 
#10
Plant-Pilot said:
whitecity said:
Plant-Pilot said:
What the f#@k do they know? Did they have access to all required information and intelligence sources to hold a full investigation? We haven't even finished our investigation which has a lot more access to the people who could say what was going on than the Dutch ever could.
What the f#@k do 'we' know? Did 'we' have access to all required information and intelligence sources to justify invasion and occupation in the first place. Of course 'we' did. Trouble is, some slimey, deceitful dark-skinned person with a teacloth on his head managed to vanish the bloody evidence to which all 'our' information and intelligence sources pointed to. How dare he!
You seem to be using the past tense there. The Chilcot inquiry is still ongoing.
Indeed I used the past tense.

Now I shall use the present perfect simple active tense: WMD has still not been found.

QED 'we' didn't "have access to all required information and intelligence sources" to make the sensible call.

Mind you, I do see a point that maybe you're trying to present. 'We' did have all the required information and intelligence but politically it was ignored. Maybe that's what the Chilcott Inquiry will summise. :)
 
#13
I wonder what this means for the Boy Blair's future travel plans?
 
#14
bernoulli said:
I wonder what this means for the Boy Blair's future travel plans?
It means nothing to him. This inquiry is a domestic affair. It doesn't deal with Blair or why the British government thought there was a legal mandate. That's up to the Chilcot inquiry.
 
#15
WMD has still not been found.
Apart from the 500 Arty rounds you mean?
 
#16
Maple said:
WMD has still not been found.
Apart from the 500 Arty rounds you mean?
Which you found, catalogued and summised as of such a threat to UK security and international peace that the invasion was warrented/justified.

A more comprehensive investigation said:

While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991. There are no credible indications that Baghdad resumed production of chemical munitions thereafter, a policy ISG attributes to Baghdad’s desire to see sanctions lifted, or rendered ineffectual, or its fear of force against it should WMD be discovered.
ISG judges that in 1991 and 1992, Iraq appears to have destroyed its undeclared stocks of BW weapons and probably destroyed remaining holdings of bulk BW agent. However ISG lacks evidence to document complete destruction. Iraq retained some BW-related seed stocks until their discovery after Operation Iraqi Freedom (OIF).
Iraq never had a nuclear weapon and subsequently the ISG found none.
 
#17
The War was illegal due to the form or words in the Resolution.

'Serious Consequences': We'll refer you back to the UNSC for more robust measures if you don't comply

'All necessary means': You can use military force.



The Resolution did not state 'All necessary means'.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top