Iraq advice 'must be made public'


Former Tory Prime Minister John Major has called for the full advice given by the attorney general about the legality of the war in Iraq to be published.
The government has so far rejected demands for it to be made public.

Mr Major said a summary had already been published and there was no excuse for not giving full details.

He told the BBC further speculation would only damage the prime minister's position and that the "poison needs to be let out of the system".

Downing Street has refused to comment on newspaper reports that the attorney general changed his advice shortly before the allied campaign began.
This one is starting to bubble nicely. Also caught the interview on ITV at 06.55 this morning, with the Labour Peeress. Stong suggestions the Legal people are about to form square, and a very strong intonation that the legal brief was also changed from the original "We need a second resolution"
Absolutely - this one will boil over nicely!

We have some Greenpeace trials over the next few weeks and the defence will try and subpoena the documents or the AG himself!

A few things are starting to come together - the papers said last year that CDS had finger-poked Bliar over something or other. This is probably it.

There may be some ramifications for us in uniform - I suspect the OSA might be changed to take us back to the days of "in camera" trials with vetted judges - that was what Blunkett was proposing for terrorist suspects, and it would have allowed the GCHQ prosecution to go ahead. I think the burden of proof may be changed as well, to "balance of probability". In the unlikely event I am still in uniform when the OSA is rewritten, there's no bloody way I'm signing it, even assuming we're given a choice!
so are we all now going to be visiting the Hague for illegally going to war in Iraq?
To my very simplistic view, the only alternative to going to war was to do what the UN do so well. Sit back, do nothing and watch it fester until you have to go and mop up a much bloodier mess later on.

It was only illegal in that the UN were still discusing the issue.... but they would still be doing that now and Al Mansur and his sons would have had a lot more time to kill off opponents, prepare for war and wave two meteforical fingers at the UN and their inspection teams.

Time to look forward and training to do the next deployment with less equipment and less troops.... It can be done, the budget managers say it can :?
Could someone please define for me what makes a war "legal" and what makes a war "illegal?"

Have yet to see anything that addresses that.
Off the top of my head, something like the Hague convention might have a definition, so might the conclusionsarising from the Nurenburg Trials.
If you find out stick in a post - it might make interesting reading. It's always better to argue from a position of authority, after all...

I've been looking all over the internet for a definition since before the war began. Haven't found one yet. Just alot of people hollering how this war is "illegal."

If I find one, you can bet I'll post it.

Why do all the pc bleeding heart liberals (oh and some other politico's with agenda's) always want to come to the fore and defend the likes of Saddam? blows me away, if they are so honourable why didnt they run over there when he was gassing his own> and his son was threatening the national football team with death if they lost a game.

Gutless moronic traitors the lot of them .

hang the b#stards :lol:

I hear you loud and clear on that one!

These same people scream bloody murder at us putting a stop to Saddass, yet turned a blind eye to his atrocities.

Go figure.

At the risk of being controversial...

There may have been a moral case to waste Saddam, but what about the other tinpot dictators across the globe? The Spams certainly took their eye off the ball when Musharraf's pet scientist started flogging nuclear secrets to all and sundry. And all the int (well, the stuff that Bliar wanted to believe) pointed to no link between Al Qaeda and Saddam. Furthermore, most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis - Dubya's best mates!

Equally, there may have been a legal case under resolution 1441 but.....why go for a second one then?? The Frogs have been unfairly smeared as being against war under any circumstances - that was not true! Their foreign minister said he would not vote for a resolution under any circumstances on what was on offer that night. A second resolution was necessary and could have been obtained if the inspecotrs had been given time.

As for the national many of our embassies were bombed before we kicked the Iraqi front door in? There was int that suggested the threat to UK plc would have been raised in this event.

The whole issue was mishandled by a bunch of spinners on both sides of the pond that conned their electorates and tried the same on with the wider community. This will go down in history as one of the greatest diplomatic failures of the modern era. "Unreasonable veto" - what crap!! I believe there was a moral case for toppling Saddam and a resolution would have been forthcoming if the inspectors had been given enough time. A proper invasion, with the US and UK doing the hard bits, and a subsequent blue helmet mission with Pakistani and Bangladeshi peacekeepers who understand the culture, could have been a blueprint for future UN-backed interventionist wars. Instead, we have the cocked-up running sore that is Iraq now! Rant ends.
Dont disagree with you at all MrPVRd, however when did this Nation of ours succumb to whining and defending our actions :?:

We did it lets stand by it, you said yourself there was a moral action to what we did, so lets stand by it .

As for all the other tinpot dictators etc etc in time.

The whole "world terrorism" thing has become so clouded, sometimes we cannot see the trees for the woods.

Lets not lose sight of the fact he was/is a terrorist who murdered his own, sanctioned and supplied funds to the other terrorist organisations to eventually in time invoke on the world his own brand of "justice and morality"...................

I say whatever the pc bleeding hearts want to do now let them untill they start standing up when its needed and maybe putting there lives on the line to defend the world from madmen like him............they have nothing to say that I am interested in.
I agree with your comments Tigger. It's oh so easy to start to pick at decisions made after the dust has settled and it's too late. Once it's done it's done. Learn the lessons yes, but not all the sh1t flinging that's going on at the moment.

Similar threads

Latest Threads