The final nail in Bliars coffin?

#2
That was good to read as at least it gives you a bit of perspective compared to the "extracts" that some of the newspapers have been quoting.

The second paragraph in the summary clearly states that a second resolution would be required...

This is a bit different to the sinking of the Belgrano!
 
#3
hellfyyr said:
That was good to read as at least it gives you a bit of perspective compared to the "extracts" that some of the newspapers have been quoting.

The second paragraph in the summary clearly states that a second resolution would be required...

This is a bit different to the sinking of the Belgrano!
No it doesn't. It says that he is of the opinion that the safest legal position would be to obtain a second resolution, but he also goes onto to say that a case for action without the resolution could be made.

Nowhere in this document does it say that action is illegal. In fact he states that a case could be made either way and ultimatley it would be up to a court to decide (he also goes onto question how it would get to court, which court and who would be prosecuting who).

However, I still agree with the original post. There is a distinct lack of WMD and 45 mins mentioned in this paper!
 
#4
Gonzo said:
hellfyyr said:
That was good to read as at least it gives you a bit of perspective compared to the "extracts" that some of the newspapers have been quoting.

The second paragraph in the summary clearly states that a second resolution would be required...

This is a bit different to the sinking of the Belgrano!
No it doesn't. It says that he is of the opinion that the safest legal position would be to obtain a second resolution, but he also goes onto to say that a case for action without the resolution could be made.

Nowhere in this document does it say that action is illegal. In fact he states that a case could be made either way and ultimatley it would be up to a court to decide (he also goes onto question how it would get to court, which court and who would be prosecuting who).

However, I still agree with the original post. There is a distinct lack of WMD and 45 mins mentioned in this paper!
Did I mention the word illegal? I don't think I did!

Your re-hash is almost as good as that of TCB himself; thanks for that. As I said, it clearly suggests a second resolution is needed.
 
#5
hellfyyr said:
Gonzo said:
hellfyyr said:
That was good to read as at least it gives you a bit of perspective compared to the "extracts" that some of the newspapers have been quoting.

The second paragraph in the summary clearly states that a second resolution would be required...

This is a bit different to the sinking of the Belgrano!
No it doesn't. It says that he is of the opinion that the safest legal position would be to obtain a second resolution, but he also goes onto to say that a case for action without the resolution could be made.

Nowhere in this document does it say that action is illegal. In fact he states that a case could be made either way and ultimatley it would be up to a court to decide (he also goes onto question how it would get to court, which court and who would be prosecuting who).

However, I still agree with the original post. There is a distinct lack of WMD and 45 mins mentioned in this paper!
Did I mention the word illegal? I don't think I did!

Your re-hash is almost as good as that of TCB himself; thanks for that. As I said, it clearly suggests a second resolution is needed.
Now you have changed your statement to "clearly suggests" from "clearly states". There is a big difference. At least my re-hash was accurate! I banged on about legality because if he had "clearly stated" that a second resolution was required the action would, by default, have been illegal. Did you actually read the paper or just scan the summary?
 
#7
:lol:

Genius...

BTW Gonzo I did read it, whether I say states/suggests; the point is they did not get a second resolution, we were not told about that caveat, or in fact of any caveats: the guy should be impeached.
 
#8
hellfyyr said:
:lol:

Genius...

BTW Gonzo I did read it, whether I say states/suggests; the point is they did not get a second resolution, we were not told about that caveat, or in fact of any caveats: the guy should be impeached.
Agreed.
 
#9
Before we all lose heart, just remember the first reaction of the red-tabbed grown ups when the invasion of Iraq was first mooted.

Yes Bluppet drove a coach and four through common sense and historical precedent, but remember......

There are still wise heads out there.
 
#10
Was it a legal order? Yes - OK No problems lets go and invade. No it ain't a legal order then Admiral Sir ? Boyce ?CDS at the time - it's him but what title it is escapes me. So do we arrest Gen Sir Mike? Or do I go to Gaol 'for prosecuting an aggressive war'. Scary thought and I'm too old for HM security nonsense!!
 
#11
Related News story

Blair Relents, Releases Iraq Document
April 28, 2005 10:02 PM EDT

LONDON - In an embarrassing about-face ahead of elections, Prime Minister Tony Blair on Thursday released a secret memo warning of the legal consequences of invading Iraq without a second U.N. resolution.

Blair had long refused to publish the March 7, 2003 document from Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, saying it was confidential. Instead, the prime minister had consistently pointed to the written statement Goldsmith gave to parliament 10 days later, which said the war would be legal without another resolution.

Political opponents, who pressured Blair into releasing the text after it was leaked Wednesday night, said it showed the prime minister had deceived Britain - a charge Blair denied.

"For the past few days it's been said that the attorney general advised that it was illegal to go to war," Blair told the audience at a British Broadcasting Corp. panel program on Thursday. "He didn't. He advised it was lawful."

Speaking to the House of Commons last month, Blair said: "If it is being said that the legal opinion of the attorney general was different from the attorney general's statement to the House, that is patently absurd."

The prime minister's main electoral opponent, Conservative leader Michael Howard, said Thursday that, "If you can't trust Mr. Blair on the decision to take the country to war, the most important decision a prime minister can take, how can you trust Mr. Blair on anything else ever again?"

Blair insisted Goldsmith's advice had been consistent.

"Whatever I say, I will never, ever convince some people who have been opposed to this war," said Blair. "I cannot apologize for that decision because I still think the world is a better place with Saddam (Hussein) in prison rather than in power."

Opinion polls show Blair's Labour Party with a solid lead before the May 5 election but Blair's about-face could derail the final days of his election campaign.

Goldsmith's 13-page memo to Blair warns the government it would be safer to go to war with a second U.N. Security Council resolution specifically authorizing military action. It also warned that British troops taking part in the conflict could be open to legal action.

Ten days later, Goldsmith said the war would be legal without a further resolution. Opponents insist there is a clear difference between Goldsmith's views in the March 7 and March 17 documents, and question whether the attorney general was leaned on politically.

Howard, who has branded Blair a liar, said the document reinforced doubts about Blair's integrity and ability to lead the country.

"Mr. Blair has said that the attorney general's advice to the Cabinet on the 17th March was 'very clear' that the war was legal, and that the attorney general had not changed his mind," Howard said. "It is obvious that he did. So what the public must now have an answer to is this: what, or who, changed the attorney general's mind?"

Howard's own support for the war may undermine his ability to use lingering controversy over the conflict to his electoral advantage.

"I would have supported the war because I think it was the right thing to do," Howard said on the BBC program, at which he, Blair and Liberal Democrat leader Charles Kennedy separately answered audience questions.

"Saddam Hussein had been in breach of many U.N. resolutions," Howard said. "I think he was a threat to the peace in the region and the wider world. But I think it was possible to go to war and tell the truth and I don't think Mr. Blair did that."

Blair had long refused to publish the memo, arguing as late as Wednesday night that it would set a dangerous precedent to release confidential legal advice.

"You have probably got it all anyway. I see no reason not to publish it," he said Thursday. "The key thing was the attorney general advising it was lawful to proceed. This so-called smoking gun has turned out to be a damp squib, because he did advise it was lawful to proceed."

Polls show Labour with a healthy lead. A survey conducted by pollster ICM for Thursday's edition of The Guardian newspaper put Labour support at 40 percent, with the Conservatives at 33 percent and the Liberal Democrats at 20 percent. The margin of error was 3 percentage points.

---

On the Net:

Document: http://www.pm.gov.uk/files/pdf/Iraq Resolution 1441.pdf
Copyright 2005 Associated Press. All rights reserved.
 
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
Provost The Intelligence Cell 90
R REME 15
P The Intelligence Cell 6

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top