Iraq inquiry: a corker of a declassified document
Interesting papers on the Iraq legal opinion released by the coalition government – there was a long fruitless struggle to get them from the last government.
There’s a corker of a letter from the attorney general to the PM on 30 January 2003 – the day before the PM and President Bush sit in the White House and Bush tells Blair the war starts in March and Blair tells Bush we’ll be with you.
But this letter says war would be illegal without a second resolution. Sir David Manning has written at the top “clear advice from attorney on need for further resolution – DM 31/1″ and the heading “Prime Minister to see” which has a tick through it.
No. 10 aide Matthew Rycroft has written “specifically said we did not [underlined] need further advice this week – Matthew 31/1.”
And there scribbled on the side as well is marginalia from the boss himself, T Blair. “I just don’t understand this,” he has written, next to the attorney general’s statement that war would be unlawful without another UN resolution.
You get the impression the attorney felt he was being treated with a certain amount of contempt. The minutes of the chat between Jack Straw, the foreign secretary, and Lord Goldsmith, then attorney general, from 18 October 2002 also give a similar flavour.
The attorney general is “very troubled” by the way the PM was going about telling President Bush that we’d be shoulder to shoulder with the Americans even though he knew the attorney thought war without a second UN resolution would be “unlawful.”
The attorney says he really should not be excluded from meetings about the war. Not quite the tone you got from the oral evidence Lord G gave. And these are documents, by the way, which Cabinet Secretary Sir Gus O’Donnell had previously refused to publish. His letter to the inquiry insists he’s changed his mind because of his own reflections (and so not because of the change of government).
There are 19 comments on this post
This political culture of arrogance and self interest leading to down right lies and ultimate war, is so shocking that it truly beggars belief how these people are still allowed to get away with it. This British governance is so corrupt it’s small wonder there is great hate towards it. I for one would not stop until these people are brought to account and prosecuted in the Hague. The UK has become a cesspit of deceit driven by a minority of MPs & rich connected people with no morals. Let me just say, there are millions of people affected and traumatised by the conflict in Iraq & Afghan while these people saunter off to their luxury hide outs and evade prosecution. No doubt they’ve got some vested interest in Arms manufacturing supply line, media sales or, some other monetary gain from these false wars.
I’m pleased to see this new government is exposing these liars but, I want to see them arrested & held account, esp former heads Blair & Brown.
We now live in a country hated by millions abroad because of the arrogant lies of Labour Ministers/Lords & their connections with rich scum.
More evidence if such was necessary; that there is definitely a case to answer.
Now watch, as if by magic, nothing happens!
The rule of law- that no one is above the law only applies to little people not the ruling class.
If the new lot were any different they’d demand the courts get involved. But like the expenses the so called honest one(s) are quiet about the thieves. This is implausible. The honest ones would gain power and position by getting rid of guilty. As well as standing for justice. Which an honest politician should want no?
Why then are the so called good majority so silent. Is that to represent the people? Or the corrupt power structure of the status quo?
So do we know who wrote “I just don’t understand this” in the margin?
well,it certainly looks as if there could be a legitimate case of war crimes against Blair and Bush
Damning endictements all around that this revelation not considered an outrage by the public, press and anti war movements. Thank you for running the story with documents. We are expected to follow the law but it is okay for our elected leaders to break them. All the US press is talking about is a special award from a US constitutional think tank for Tony Blair’s services in the name of liberty!
Remind me, who was it said ‘Tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’? I seem to remember it was a man who clearly had no concerns about what was legal and what was not.
Thousands of innocent Iraqi’s have been killed, many more injured and left homeless and for what? One fewer despot in charge of a country but plenty of others still in place. A pointless, horrific war motivated probably by oil nand Bush’s desire to avenge his father.
Britain has never lost the feeling that we have the right to do whatever we think is best for other people and other countries. We are still colonialists at heart.
But nothing will happen to Bush and Blair. It’s their world and they make their own rules.
I was fully on board with this comment till the point where you said ‘we’re all still colonialists at heart’. Frankly that’s rubbish, the British People never supported the war – they marched en masse against it and were ignored. Lay the blame where it truly lies – with Bush’s poodle Blair.
Tom, you are right. When I said Britain, I meant the state not the people.
“I just don’t understand this,” : So many people nowadays have this problem – they simply (and honestly, I suspect), cannot understand anything they don’t want to hear.
A deep sense of shock ran through me when I read this blog. Thank you for making it available to us, Gary. The shock was followed by the knowledge that absolutely nothing will be done to the perpetrators of this enormous crime. The Con/Lib coalition must be congratulated, though, for making sure that this is made public and is it possible that its existence might influence decisions made about Afghanistan?
On the contrary the lib/con government should not be congratulated. That comes from doing something. All they’ve achieved is further entrenching the idea that the rulers can flout the law.
They’ve made it a precedent!
Now they can do the same. After all it was ok last time wasn’t it?
“the people understand that government is hard and we’ll make mistakes. So it’s ok to deliberately sacrifice uk soldiers and foreigners for profit and kick back.”
In the light of the new evidence that clearly showed Blair,Straw and those in power around them, lied to Parliament, the people and subsequent enquiries,there is a bona fide case for considering prosecutions and a case to be submitted to the Hague for war crimes.
Who has to undertake such actions?Are normal citizens in a position to affect the situation?
If Blair didn’t understand, what evidence is there to demonstrate he asked collateral questions to raise his level of understanding?
I always thought that one of the fundamental facets of adminstistrative law is the asking of collateral questions during the decision-making process. Blair’s a lawyer and should have asked them. If he didn’t, maybe there’s a case for maladministration before he even reaches the more serious levels of judicial activity?
If we can’t get Blair arrested in the UK, is there scope for an EU citizen to apply for a European Arrest Warrant in a different member state?
Steve, Blair’s cunning as a lawyer is revealed in these documents where he has clearly asked not to be given any fresh advice in case it goes against what he wants to do.
Sam, Yes – you’re correct. I’d still like to see Blair undergo a fair trial with a harsh outcome if he’s found guilty. Steve.
I think the posters here discussing whether it would be possible to indict Blair as a war criminal are expressing a wish that many thousands of us have about the Iraq invasion. In my case, this increases the sense of total impotence I feel in relation to the governance of this country, because I know that the carefully cultivated contacts that Blair and his cronies made while in power will protect him and make sure that nothing happens to him. As always, there is a scapegoat, and in this case it is Lord Goldsmith, and one simply wonders why he allowed himself to be put into this completely invidious position.
Blair knew the Security Council would not
authorise war so the only way round the problem was to twist his solicitor’s arm until
he changed his legal opinion. Which one of
us would undertake an act of extreme violence using the opinion of our solicitor as
justification? We’d be thrown in the slammer.But that’s just what the Cabinet and the Military did.
UK and US of A are the one possess of WMD in staggering quantity! Based from the reason why they invaded IRAQ, they are the one,to be disarmed!!