It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Pressure grows on Blair to reveal legal advice to justify Iraq War

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:36 AM
link   
Fresh calls have been made to British PM Tony Blair to publish documents drafted to justify the Iraq War. It has been claimed that the Attorney General's statement was actually drawn up at number 10, although he denies this, and that further investigation is necessary. The government refuses to do saying such papers have always been kept confidential.
 



news.bbc.co.uk
Tory former minister Michael Mates said claims the Attorney General's statement to Parliament was drawn up at Number 10 needed to be investigated.

And Labour ex-cabinet minister Clare Short is calling for a Parliamentary probe, accusing Lord Goldsmith of breaking ministerial rules. Lord Goldsmith denies being "leaned on" and says the words written were his.

The government refuses to publish his advice on the legality of the war - saying such papers have always been kept confidential.

Mr Mates, who is a member of the Commons intelligence and security committee and was part of the Butler inquiry into pre-war intelligence, told the BBC's Today programme: "That, as a general rule, is right, but it's not an absolute rule."



Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It has become clear that the government should not be able to hide behind the "confidential" card, and as Mr Mates put it they've released such documents before and so should not get to pick and choose.

When it comes to something as serious as this, and is obviously not a threat to be revealed (except to possibly the government for their conduct) then these documents should be revealed to learn the truth. However, no doubt Number 10 will have this one swept under the carpet and it will not be too long before it's forgotten about.

[edit on 25-2-2005 by John bull 1]

[edit on 27-2-2005 by John bull 1]




posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 06:56 AM
link   
Blair has not long ago again refused to release the documents at this mornings press conference:

Iraq War Legality: Blair Rejects Call to Publish Advice


He has previously refused, insisting that legal advice to ministers always remains confidential. But some observers, including Mr Mates, believe that this convention was breached by Lord Falconer when he released the legal reasoning behind his advice that the marriage between the Prince of Wales and Camilla Parker-Bowles will be lawful.

Mr Blair rejected the argument: “Firstly, we haven’t broken the precedent, and secondly Peter Goldsmith has made his statement and I have got absolutely nothing to add to it.

“He has been over these questions literally scores of times and the position has not changed.”


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 08:34 AM
link   
It would be insane for him to release documents of Bush and the Queen pressuring him to be a good little soldier and get his ass in this war.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kazi
It would be insane for him to release documents of Bush and the Queen pressuring him to be a good little soldier and get his ass in this war.


"Good little soldier" that's biggest joke of heard all year - it was more like get his arse in the air so Bush could...

[edit on 25-2-2005 by smokinjoe]



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 03:50 PM
link   
yah, and I'm sure you all will be happy to send condolence cards to families of assets compromised by releasing sensitive intelligence data.

Who needs the KGB? With everyone cluelessly screaming that government doesn't need secrets, politicians eager to save their jobs will be happy to hand over everything, no matter what cost was paid to get the data.

And when it comes out there were legitimate concerns for the war, and it finally is impossible for you to brush off the information given as the conspiracy you seem to need it to be, what will you do then?

Sit and complain when your leaders don't stop some act of agression because they didn't have any functional intel assets left? Screaming "why didn't you guys have deep cover spies in there?" or something. Just like the sheeple here in the States, who demanded cutbacks in military and intellingence spending, and demanded disclosure and the cessation of "dirty tricks"-who then didn't understand why America's intel assets failed on 9-11, and again on the WMD issue?

Sheesh, get over those homoerotic fantasies you have of world leaders, okay? You want to write erotic fiction, there are other boards for it.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 04:52 PM
link   
Well I don't know much about UK politics but I will love to see what the documents are all about, and if it make any difference now at this time.

I guess that is just to pressure Blair and his party chances on elections, I guess every country have it's own way of playing the political game for political gain.



posted on Feb, 25 2005 @ 09:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
Sit and complain when your leaders don't stop some act of agression because they didn't have any functional intel assets left? Screaming "why didn't you guys have deep cover spies in there?" or something.


No one is after sensitive intel to be disclosed, but rather the Atorney General's documents to be released to ascertain whether they were in fact drawn up at number 10 and not him and him only. This is not a threat to National security, try actually reading the article next time.



who then didn't understand why America's intel assets failed on 9-11, and again on the WMD issue?


It wasn't intel that failed on 9-11, but rather lack of acting on it. The Bush admin had in its posession documents that stated Bin Laden was planning to carry out a terrorist attack on the US, likely using planes. The information was not acted upon.
However, this is not the topic of this thread and if you really want to discuss that there's plenty of threads that'll reveal to you such information. Go forth and learn...



posted on Feb, 26 2005 @ 06:59 PM
link   
The Clinton Administration knew about Bin Laden, and could have taken him out loooong ago. But Clinton didn't want to here about it.



posted on Feb, 27 2005 @ 05:21 AM
link   
Blair will be anxious for documents nopt to be made public
it would be the finish of him and his lies,
also it wouldf show he waged an illegal war in iraq and had no justification
to declare it.

SHOW US THE DOCS YOU MONGRELText Red



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join