Iraq legal advice - Now this could be an interesting read

#2
Just scanned the document...definitely worth a read...I'll let others make up thier mind on what the conclusion was...but it is stated quite plainly to me.

S_R
 

OldSnowy

LE
Moderator
Book Reviewer
#5
Absoutely clear - invasion would be illega. However - the get-out is there in the ..."and I appreciate that there may be other documentation which I have not seen"....

It would, though, have to be pretty damn powerful stuff to make a difference. It will be interesting to see the 'final' version, once Campbell had worked his black magic.
 
#6
Well, well. Don't see Blair being called to account for it though, or even having to reduce his speaking fees.

I wonder what changed Goldsmith's mind between 30 Jul 02 and 7 Mar 03? Anybody hear of horse mutilations around Chez Mandelson?
 
#7
The document is absolutely clear that without a fresh UN resolution military action was illegal.

Forgive my ignorance but is this why Blair made the 45 minute claim - to provide a basis for invasion under the clause allowing for military action if there was an immediate and imminent threat from Iraq? Or was this document written after the 45 minute claim?
 
#8
May it please your Lordship, we contend that the accused, Anthony Lynton Blair, sometime Prime Minister of Great Britain, and First Lord of the Treasury, did in conjunction with other Powers, invade and prosecute ileagal warfare against the People of Iraq, blah blah blah, M'lud.
 
#9
I think that what may have changed his (Goldsmith's) mind between version 1 and version 2 was the fact that he was OTS and banging a fellow (female, you have to qualify it these days) lawyer without Mrs G knowing about it. Lawyers and money are very rarely parted, especially in divorce and ancillary relief (dosh) cases.
Funny old game though, after the dust had settled and two seperate "inquiries" had been concluded it was then announced he was splitting with the missus and all was amicable.
My arrse.
Photos,videos, certain saved text messages and some DNA changed his mind pretty sharpish methinks?
 
#10
What is the possibility of Blair ever being brought to book for all this? Don,t want to appear dumb,but He,s the Ex.Prime minister and has committed what I can only call "War Crimes"....He,s a bloke that needs a good grilling for all the sh1t he,s caused!
Is he above the Law?
 
#11
Bamber(Phil) said:
What is the possibility of Blair ever being brought to book for all this? Don,t want to appear dumb,but He,s the Ex.Prime minister and has committed what I can only call "War Crimes"....He,s a bloke that needs a good grilling for all the sh1t he,s caused!
Is he above the Law?
Oh very yes, of ccourse he is, he,s Tony Bliar saviour of Democracy and all the other sh*t he banged on about.
 
#13
AlMiles said:
EX_STAB said:
That's as plain as day. Military action would be (was) unlawful.
When does Blair's war crimes trial begin? Has anyone put the case to the Hague for him to be indicted yet? Crack on!
FFS Heads will roll, the bloke who was running the shredder will be taking a walk in the woods soon then, for missing that
 
#14
Bamber(Phil) said:
What is the possibility of Blair ever being brought to book for all this? Don,t want to appear dumb,but He,s the Ex.Prime minister and has committed what I can only call "War Crimes"....He,s a bloke that needs a good grilling for all the sh1t he,s caused!
Is he above the Law?
He probably is TBH.

Technically he aint, but the chances of him ever having to face a charge on this is zero IMO
 
#15
I onder if this will be the first of many declassification decisions?

As current in another thread, could the 70years on Dr Kelly information also be changed/?
 
#16
I've been cynical about this enquiry, but now my cynicism has changed to utter disbelief!

Mr. Prescott gave 'evidence' today.

I have some questions:

1. Who interpreted the witless oaf's 'woffling' and 'gibberish'?
2. Who wrote his answers and who coached him into giving them to Chilcott?
 
#17
The document is absolutely clear that without a fresh UN resolution military action was illegal.

Forgive my ignorance but is this why Blair made the 45 minute claim - to provide a basis for invasion under the clause allowing for military action if there was an immediate and imminent threat from Iraq? Or was this document written after the 45 minute claim?
I don't know the answer to this, however I remain surprised that Bliar was not more closely questioned on the 45 min claim:

If the evidence said there was a capability to launch WMD within 45 minutes then that evidence would surely have indicated the nature / origin of the threat - i.e. the delivery system and thus whether battlefield or strategic.

Either:

a) Bliar knew it was Battlefield only but chose to imply it was strategic.
b) Bliar did not know whether the threat was Battlefield or Strategic and it was not possible to be sure from the evidence.
c) Bliar did not know the difference between Battlefield and Strategic so claimed the threat was Strategic.

Bottom up -
c) he should not have been in power if he didn't know the difference (much less be issuing orders to our SSBN).
b) he should not have sent us to war without clarification and he still lied by saying it was strategic when he didn't know what it was.
a) He lied to go to war

I can not find a possibility of a 'd)' that permits him any wiggle room - he was either incompetent in the case of 'c' or he lied.
 

Latest Threads

Top