Revealed: Attorney General changed his advice on legality of Iraq war

[UpInArms]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=496269

Lord Goldsmith believed that a 'further UN resolution was needed'. Blair under increasing pressure to publish full legal case for Iraq war

By Raymond Whitaker and Robert Verkaik

29 February 2004

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, changed his advice in the run-up to war in Iraq to declare that the conflict was legal, The Independent on Sunday has learnt.

Lord Goldsmith's full opinion on the legality of the war has never been made public. The desire to keep it secret is believed to be the main reason why the Official Secrets Act prosecution of Katharine Gun, a 29-year-old former employee of GCHQ, the Government's monitoring centre, was abandoned at the Old Bailey last week.

The case could have revealed that in November 2002 the Attorney General believed Britain required specific authorisation for war from the UN Security Council, but that he later changed his stance.

...more...

[Zhade]

1. Woah, some heavy stuff in there.

But the IoS has learnt from sources connected to the Gun case that in November 2002, when the Security Council passed resolution 1441, threatening "serious consequences" if Iraq did not "comply with its disarmament obligations", Lord Goldsmith agreed with the Foreign Office view that a further resolution would be needed to make war legal. As the possibility of war without such a resolution loomed, Britain's military chiefs of staff argued that they needed a clearer legal basis on which to proceed.

Between November and the end of January 2003, the IoS was told, the Attorney General's staff produced a paper dealing with the issues raised by the military chiefs, but it fell short of the legal authorisation the chiefs of staff wanted. "The military said they needed something harder if they were to commit troops," a legal source said. Lord Goldsmith's advice argued that a UN resolution from 13 years ago remained in force.

[pinto]

2. UK press pushes legality issue while US looks at Janet's boob...n/t

[Gman]

3. At the time this happened

everyone in the UK (and here) knew the opinion was changed for political purposes. Since the UK government relatively well transparent rather than dark and stonewalled here finding this out was inevitable.

[TacticalPeek]

4. Thank goodness, in the US only Congress can declare serious consequences.

:silly:

[Monkey see Monkey Do]

5. (also) Army chiefs feared Iraq war illegal just days before start

(snip)

Refusing to commit troops already stationed in Kuwait, senior military leaders were adamant that war could not begin until they were satisfied that neither they nor their men could be tried. Some 10 days later, Britain and America began the campaign.

Goldsmith also wrote to Blair at the end of January voicing concerns that the war might be illegal without a second resolution from the United Nations. Opposition MPs seized on The Observer's revelations last night, accusing Goldsmith of caving in to political pressure from the Prime Minister to change his legal advice on the eve of war.

Senior Whitehall sources involved in putting together critical legal advice on the war told The Observer that Goldsmith was originally 'sitting on the fence' and that his initial advice was 'prevaricating'. This was 'tightened' up only days before the conflict began after concerns were raised by Sir Michael Boyce, the then Chief of Defence Staff, who told senior ministers of his worries. It is believed that Boyce demanded an unequivocal statement that the invasion of Iraq was lawful. It is understood that it was only after seeing Goldsmith's final legal advice, given days before the outbreak of war, that Boyce gave his approval.

Without this legal reassurace, military leaders and their troops could have laid themselves open to charges of war crimes. At the time, UK troops were already in Kuwait poised for an invasion.

(contd)

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1158801,00.html