Lord Goldsmith, Tony Blair's former attorney general, has given a written response to a written question posed by the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war.
On 15 January 2003 Blair told MPs that while a second UN resolution was "preferable", there were circumstances in which it was "not necessary".
The inquiry panel asked Lord Goldsmith if he felt those words were "compatible with the advice you had given him".
Lord Goldsmith replied "no".
Thhe BBC quotes him also saying:
"I was uncomfortable about them and I believe that I discussed my concerns with [then foreign secretary] Jack Straw and my own staff."
Showing posts with label goldsmith. Show all posts
Showing posts with label goldsmith. Show all posts
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Thursday, July 01, 2010
Goldsmith's Advice To Blair Published
The Chilcot Iraq inquiry has released details of the legal advice given to Tony Blair, from the then Attorney General Lord Goldsmith, prior to the invasion of Iraq.
In the released correspondence (dated February 12 2003), Lord Goldsmith told Blair that should military action be taken without further approval by the UN Security Council, he expected "the government to be accused of acting unlawfully".
In a letter to Blair on 30 January, 2003, Lord Goldsmith said he "remained of the view that the correct legal interpretation of resolution 1441 is that it does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the Security Council".
However, following Blair's meeting with Bush in 2003 (when Blair promised Bush that Britain would go to war) Goldsmith changed his view. The BBC quotes him as saying he was "prepared to accept that a reasonable case" could be made that military action was authorised by existing resolutions, including resolution 1441.
In the released correspondence (dated February 12 2003), Lord Goldsmith told Blair that should military action be taken without further approval by the UN Security Council, he expected "the government to be accused of acting unlawfully".
In a letter to Blair on 30 January, 2003, Lord Goldsmith said he "remained of the view that the correct legal interpretation of resolution 1441 is that it does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the Security Council".
However, following Blair's meeting with Bush in 2003 (when Blair promised Bush that Britain would go to war) Goldsmith changed his view. The BBC quotes him as saying he was "prepared to accept that a reasonable case" could be made that military action was authorised by existing resolutions, including resolution 1441.
Tuesday, February 02, 2010
Cabinet Misled
Unsurprisingly Claire Short, during her appearance at the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war, pulled no punches when it came to trying to put the boot into Tony Blair.
She said that Blair "and his mates" decided war was necessary, and "everything was done on a wing and a prayer".
That seems to be a pretty fair assessment.
She didn't have many kind words for the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, either:
"I think he misled the cabinet. He certainly misled me, but people let it through."
Her "principled" stand is somewhat let down by the fact that she stayed in the cabinet after the war had started, relying on the promise by Blair that she would have a major role in the reconstruction of Iraq.
As we know, the reconstruction has been a bodged job (to put it mildly). However, even if it had been a beacon of success, it seems a strange stance to take to happily stand by whilst a country is being bombed to smithereens merely on the promise of being allowed to rebuild it again.
She said that Blair "and his mates" decided war was necessary, and "everything was done on a wing and a prayer".
That seems to be a pretty fair assessment.
She didn't have many kind words for the former Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, either:
"I think he misled the cabinet. He certainly misled me, but people let it through."
Her "principled" stand is somewhat let down by the fact that she stayed in the cabinet after the war had started, relying on the promise by Blair that she would have a major role in the reconstruction of Iraq.
As we know, the reconstruction has been a bodged job (to put it mildly). However, even if it had been a beacon of success, it seems a strange stance to take to happily stand by whilst a country is being bombed to smithereens merely on the promise of being allowed to rebuild it again.
Thursday, January 28, 2010
Gagging
It seems that the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war is operating with at least one hand tied behind its back.
During yesterday's questioning of Lord Goldsmith (the government's attorney general at the time of the Iraq war) it emerged that the government has not sanctioned the release of documents that show how Lord Goldsmith's legal advice changed.
Neither Sir John Chilcot nor Lord Goldsmith were particularly happy that they could not refer to these secret memos.
An inquiry that is hampered in this way, will produce a result of very little substance.
That of course is exactly what Gordon Brown wanted when he sanctioned the inquiry.
During yesterday's questioning of Lord Goldsmith (the government's attorney general at the time of the Iraq war) it emerged that the government has not sanctioned the release of documents that show how Lord Goldsmith's legal advice changed.
Neither Sir John Chilcot nor Lord Goldsmith were particularly happy that they could not refer to these secret memos.
An inquiry that is hampered in this way, will produce a result of very little substance.
That of course is exactly what Gordon Brown wanted when he sanctioned the inquiry.
Wednesday, January 27, 2010
The Bleedin' Obvious
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?
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?
Tuesday, January 26, 2010
No Legal Basis
Sir Michael Wood, the most senior legal adviser at the Foreign Office at the time of the Iraq invasion, told the Chilcot Inquiry into the Iraq war that he disagreed with the advice of Lord Goldsmith, the former attorney general, that military intervention was lawful.
In a written statement he said:
"I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law."
Sir Michael also wrote to Jack Straw on January 24 2003 outlining his concerns with comments Straw made to then-US vice president Dick Cheney in Washington.
Straw told Cheney that Britain would "prefer" a second resolution, but it would be "OK" if they tried and failed to get one "a la Kosovo".
Sir Michael wrote:
"I hope there is no doubt in anyone's mind that, without a further decision of the Council, and absent extraordinary circumstances of which at present there is no sign, the UK cannot lawfully use force against Iraq to ensure compliance with its Security Council WMD resolution."
Straw rejected the advice, on the basis the international law was very vague.
The government of the day was looking for ways to justify and enact a decision that it had already been made. The alleged "vagueness" of international law gave them what they thought to be a hook onto which to hang their arguments, albeit ever so tenuous.
In a written statement he said:
"I considered that the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law."
Sir Michael also wrote to Jack Straw on January 24 2003 outlining his concerns with comments Straw made to then-US vice president Dick Cheney in Washington.
Straw told Cheney that Britain would "prefer" a second resolution, but it would be "OK" if they tried and failed to get one "a la Kosovo".
Sir Michael wrote:
"I hope there is no doubt in anyone's mind that, without a further decision of the Council, and absent extraordinary circumstances of which at present there is no sign, the UK cannot lawfully use force against Iraq to ensure compliance with its Security Council WMD resolution."
Straw rejected the advice, on the basis the international law was very vague.
The government of the day was looking for ways to justify and enact a decision that it had already been made. The alleged "vagueness" of international law gave them what they thought to be a hook onto which to hang their arguments, albeit ever so tenuous.
Friday, January 15, 2010
Legal Advice Changed
Lord Turnbull, who was Cabinet secretary in the run up to the Iraq war, told the Chilcot Inquiry into the war that there were important differences between the final legal opinion Lord Goldsmith (the then Attorney General) presented to the Cabinet and an earlier version he gave privately to Tony Blair.
"It was not, in my view, a summary of what had been produced 10 days earlier. It was materially different in some respects because of the passage of time.
Certain things had changed."
Why such large changes over such a short period of time?
"It was not, in my view, a summary of what had been produced 10 days earlier. It was materially different in some respects because of the passage of time.
Certain things had changed."
Why such large changes over such a short period of time?
Tuesday, December 01, 2009
Invading Iraq Was Illegal
Lord Steyn, a crossbench peer and former Law Lord, is quoted in the FT:
"The invasion of Iraq has had, and will continue to have, grave consequences for the peace and security of the region and the world. It weakened international institutions.
It fractured the international rule of law.
It encouraged disrespect for the law by authoritarian regimes who copied the words and examples of George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Torture became ever more widespread. Rendition, a fancy word for kidnapping, became institutionalised as a form of torture by proxy in odious regimes."
Meanwhile the Iraq Inquiry was told by Sir David Manning, Blair's foreign policy adviser, on Monday that Blair promised George Bush at a meeting in Texas, 11 months before the Iraq invasion, that he would be prepared to join the US in toppling Saddam Hussein.
The trouble with Blair's promise is that it was illegal.
Blair was warned by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, and other legal advisers that going to war with regime change as the objective was unlawful and breached the UN charter.
QED: The war was illegal!
"The invasion of Iraq has had, and will continue to have, grave consequences for the peace and security of the region and the world. It weakened international institutions.
It fractured the international rule of law.
It encouraged disrespect for the law by authoritarian regimes who copied the words and examples of George W. Bush and Tony Blair. Torture became ever more widespread. Rendition, a fancy word for kidnapping, became institutionalised as a form of torture by proxy in odious regimes."
Meanwhile the Iraq Inquiry was told by Sir David Manning, Blair's foreign policy adviser, on Monday that Blair promised George Bush at a meeting in Texas, 11 months before the Iraq invasion, that he would be prepared to join the US in toppling Saddam Hussein.
The trouble with Blair's promise is that it was illegal.
Blair was warned by Lord Goldsmith, the attorney general, and other legal advisers that going to war with regime change as the objective was unlawful and breached the UN charter.
QED: The war was illegal!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)