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: Lord Goldsmith: Iraq war could be illegal (Confirmed)

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:18 PM
link   
Official documents by Lord Goldsmith, the British Attorney General, have been leaked to Channel 4 news today. His advice to Prime Minister Blair states that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal if another U.N resolution was not approved. The Attorney General's advice was not shown to parliament or even Blair's cabinet. 10 days after the initial advice, when a U.N resolution was not forthcoming, his advice abrubtly changed to that of the invasion being legal with no reservations.
 



uk.news.yahoo.com
Channel Four news published what it said was the text of a secret March 7, 2003 opinion by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith stating that "a court might well conclude" UN Security Council resolutions did not authorise war without a further resolution.

"I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force," Goldsmith wrote.

The argument that earlier resolutions authorised war "will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity."

"In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation."

Ten days later, after Britain failed to obtain a new resolution, Goldsmith presented the cabinet with a single page "summary" of his advice in which he said conclusively that the war was legal and mentioned no doubts.


Please visit the link provided for the complete story.


The existence of this document has been no secret for a very long time and Mr.Blair had refused to make it public. Now we know why. Mr.Blair knowlingly entered Britain into an illegal invasion of Iraq, for this he should be removed from office and put on trial.

If the Attorney General considered the invasion illegal you can damn well bet that a British court would find the same. Mr. Blair pressured Lord Goldsmith into "changing" his advice thus negating any check and balance in our governmental system.

The timing of this leak is no suprise given the fact that the General Election is only 8 days away.

Bring on the Liberal Democrats!

[edit on 27/4/05 by subz]




posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:32 PM
link   
What a difference ten days makes.

The difference between the UK and the US is that in the UK people will notice.

Nice historical article given more currency.

Q: Would the Tories pull troops out of Iraq? Unlikely.



posted on Apr, 27 2005 @ 04:47 PM
link   
Im sure i've heard that walking muppet, Michael "Im a Xenophobe" Howard, say that he'd pull our troops out of Iraq by Christmas.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 01:42 AM
link   


Michael "Im a Xenophobe" Howard,


Quite ironic really considering he is the son of Polish Imigrants (and illegal ones at that!)

But I am not sure about him saying about pulling troops out....

I doubt this will make a difference though (the story) as Bluurrrrrgh will just slip and slide his way out of it like a well greased snake, sliding around in a pit of grease which is then put in a wrestling wring with Simon the Slippery Snake Charmer......



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
The Brits will notice?

I don't think any more than Yanks do.

This is a tempest in a teapot and will thrown out with a new pot. The UK is locked into Iraq just like the US. Neither can pull out.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 06:10 AM
link   
Getting U2U's about it being a biased story and a repeat. God I wish I could reply to these with a cluepon.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 07:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
What a difference ten days makes.

The difference between the UK and the US is that in the UK people will notice.

Nice historical article given more currency.

Q: Would the Tories pull troops out of Iraq? Unlikely.


Not sure where you are from friend but I live in the north of England and its like the old saying goes "small town, small minds" and seeing as England is mostly small towns it makes for alot of closed minded people. Sure, people here know they're being messed about (understatment of the year) by Blair and his cronies. The trouble is people keep thinking a vote for Lib Dem is a wasted one. Just because the odds are against them being the underdog of the three main parties, people give up fom the start. I'll be voting for the democrats on the 5th because if there is any foul play it will surely be dug up by great investigative reporters like Greg Palast just as he did with the US elections.

I think apathy rules in the UK right now and most people including some of our top reporters have become bitter and cynicle, and who can blame them living in a country that doesn't really have many politicians you can trust.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:08 AM
link   
Question:
There is a distinct difference between what "could be" and what "is", just as there is a distinct difference between "could" and "would", correct?

Amazing that this revelation can be brought up now, during an election campaign in the UK, and yet Lord Goldsmith, despite what is being indicated in the article by subz, still told the people that the war was legit.
Interesting, no?

Ironic how things like this come out during an election season, huh?




seekerof



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 08:41 AM
link   
Its not the first time this has been mentioned Seeker, its been a long running thing for quite a while.



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 10:16 AM
link   
The UK Government have today (28 April 2005) finally published the full document of 7 March 2003, which contains the Attorney-General's advice to the Prime Minister concerning the legality of invading Iraq. (Yesterdays 'leak' was just the summary of this document.)

image.guardian.co.uk...

Item 3 contains an interesting legal opinion.

"I am aware that the USA has been arguing for recognition of a broad doctrine of a right to use force to pre-empt danger in the future. If this means more than a right to respond proportionately to an imminent attack (and I understand that the doctrine is intended to carry that connotation) this is not a doctrine which, in my opinion, exists or is recognised in international law."


zero lift


[edit on 28-4-2005 by zero lift]



posted on Apr, 28 2005 @ 12:18 PM
link   
Seekerof, the way Goldsmith pussyfooted around the issue is indicative of how hard he was being leant on by Blair's govenment. Im not suprised that he used soft terms instead of flat out saying "it would be illegal".

If you read between the quintessential British understatement of Lord Goldsmith's advice there is no doubt of his opinion, the invasion was illegal.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join