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.

 

WAR: Attorney general thought Iraq invasion would be illegal.

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 02:14 PM
link   
After a Deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office resigned over the invasion of Iraq, her resignation-letter has prompted questions about the governments view on the legality of the war. The letter reveals that Lord Goldsmith, the UK attorney general, thought an invasion would be illegal two weeks before it started. The UK government faces increasing pressure to reveal material concerning the legal advice given. The foreign secretary however still refuses to release any papers that would clear the government of any wrongdoing.
 



www.guardian.co.uk
The government was challenged yesterday to publish the "entire paper trail" of the legal advice it received about the war against Iraq in light of the disclosure that the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, believed it would be unlawful less than two weeks before the invasion.

The disclosure, which the government tried to suppress, came in the resignation letter of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office, who resigned in protest at the war.

Key passages in her letter - in which she also said the attorney general changed his view twice in the days before the invasion - had been censored but were passed to the Guardian and Channel 4 News. The suppressed text said that the attorney general "gave us to understand" that he agreed with Foreign Office lawyers that the war was illegal without a new UN security council resolution, but changed his advice twice just before the war to bring it in line with "what is now the official line".


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


It´s more than a bit odd that the government would withhold these documents if they could clear them of any wrong-doing. It seems increasingly likely that Tony Blair forced the attorney general to give the war a go-ahead after France said they would veto any UN resolution.

The "coalition of the willing" has a lot of blood on their hands, and if evidence emerges that the government misled the house of commons as well as the people of Britain, we might see someone finally getting their fair punishment for this bloody mess.

As far as I am concerned there has been committed mass murder, and I hope the responsible parties will get their just reward.

Related News Links:
www.channel4.com




posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 04:00 PM
link   
blah blah blah, more emotionally loaded statements like "blood on their hands", and "mass murder" from the left.

What is sad is that no one on the left can disagree with the war, or anything other than their lords and masters declare, without criminalizing their opponents, making them some sort of evil enemy. Can't just have a difference of opinion, can we?



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 05:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Phugedaboudet
What is sad is that no one on the left can disagree with the war, or anything other than their lords and masters declare, without criminalizing their opponents, making them some sort of evil enemy. Can't just have a difference of opinion, can we?


Wait, are you talking about liberals and conservatives or are you talking about the US/UK and Iraq?

Because, I'm telling you, it sounds like you are advocating 'agreeing to disagree' with the religious law present in the Middle East. So, I'm assuming you don't agree with the crusade in the middle east then.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 09:23 PM
link   
Phugedaboudet, its funny how you presume that anyone regarding the war in Iraq as a crime is a "leftie". It just shows how narrow minded some people can be.

I happily admit I enjoy reading the Guardian. Its left leaning, but an extremely reliable news source. The fact is that "the coalition of the willing" broke international law when they attacked Iraq. If evidence is produced that they did so knowingly, punishment would be just.

Their reasons for braking the law isn't really relevant. If you brake the law, you should be punished. Im sure that most "righties" would agree.

FYI, in my country of birth, I have always voted conservative.

Deny ignorance.



posted on Mar, 25 2005 @ 09:45 PM
link   

Originally posted by gekko
Phugedaboudet, its funny how you presume that anyone regarding the war in Iraq as a crime is a "leftie". It just shows how narrow minded some people can be.

The fact is that "the coalition of the willing" broke international law when they attacked Iraq. If evidence is produced that they did so knowingly, punishment would be just.

Their reasons for braking the law isn't really relevant. If you brake the law, you should be punished. Im sure that most "righties" would agree.

FYI, in my country of birth, I have always voted conservative.

Deny ignorance.


I don't read the guardian and I am a libertarian, but none of that should matter anyway... the war was started for reasons that had nothing to do with freedom and democracy and preventing terrorism... those were happy side effects... and lucky ones at that... and don't forget, there is still a good chance that Iraq will go religious and end up agains't us.

That being said. look up the man named wolfowitz... he was the head of the iraq operation... the finacial operation that is.
He believes that the smart/rich rule the weak/poor and that the poor should be kept busy with wars and religion while the rich gather control and wealth. He is an elitist... or otherwise known as straussian...
he also was just nominated to the head of the world bank... with no other experience than knowing how to portion out the money to garner the most favors for his corporate sponsors. Unfortunatley...IMO that no justice will come, due to the very same money men... money spends the same the whole world round
links:
wikipedia wolfowitz



new topics

top topics
 
0

log in

join