Lord Goldsmith, Labour's attorney general at the time of the Iraq war, has told the Chilcot inquiry into the Iraq war that he believed that there was no immediate threat from Saddam Hussein that justified the use of force.
It was obvious at the time to all and sundry, even those who were not top flight lawyers, that Saddam posed no credible immediate threat.
Goldsmith then went on to say that, in his view, regime change was not a legitimate basis for the invasion.
Then why did he materially alter his legal advice in the run up to war, and perform a U turn?
No comments:
Post a Comment