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.

 

Iraq inquiry publishes legal advice to Blair on war

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Iraq inquiry publishes legal advice to Blair on war


news.bbc.co.uk

The Iraq inquiry has released details of the legal advice given to Tony Blair prior to the invasion of Iraq after the documents were de-classified...

Copies of the draft legal advice given by former attorney general Lord Goldsmith was [sic] previously kept secret despite calls for it to be published.

The Cabinet Office said it had decided to de-classify now because of the "very exceptional" nature of the inquiry.

There has been long running controversy over whether the war was lawful.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:16 AM
link   
The proverbial can of worms has just been opened, and it isn't just the worms who will be squirming.

Mr Blair will now have to answer for acting on advice such as "without further approval by the UN Security Council, he [Lord Goldsmith] expected "the government to be accused of acting unlawfully". Lord Goldsmith also said he "remained of the view that the correct legal interpretation of resolution 1441 is that it does not authorise the use of military force without a further determination by the Security Council".

The waters are muddy, with some of the advice suggesting a case could possibly be made for the legality of military action, but clearly even such quotations — and the former attorney general's subsequent change of mind — stop a long way short of a solid legal basis for the war.

Will there ever be any serious consequences for the former PM (not to mention the US President)?

I'm not holding my breath. So does this mean western powers can effectively act with total, endless impunity?..




news.bbc.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:37 AM
link   
The approval of the UN security council and the establishment in total was a politically motivated action. Whatever countries say in the chambers in that big white building in New York, they will always act according to their own plans. Really, what is the UN going to do? They have proved themselves as a corrupt and useless entity.

Publicly the invasion was based on the idea that 1441 was violated by Iraq's possession of WMD and their refusal to allow weapons inspectors into the country to investigate. This reason, sounds good. It is a politically sound argument. But the truth was that the real reason was emotional. All actions are based on reason but are driven by emotion. Hence, even though some were hesitant to act upon the stated reasons for 1441, as supported by your post, they were motivated by their greed, anger, sense of revenge ( kill bush Sr. ). With these reasons, there is nothing that will stop them, even the pesky right and wrong questions that might arise, if they could validate action by using the UN.

And No... I don't think that anyone will be punished. The history of the Iraq war will be rewritten to be whatever it needs to be. The victor tells the tale, the loser plays his part, the rest of us....?



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:58 AM
link   
reply to post by axiomuser
 



Whatever countries say in the chambers in that big white building in New York, they will always act according to their own plans...

You did have to go and say it like it is, didn't you?

The bending over backwards to appear to have a legal case for government action is nevertheless an indication that the PTB still need to at least appear to be acting legitimately. Well at least as long as a semblance of democracy is to be maintained.

Yet once a given leader has lost power surely there ought still to be some means by which they answer for misleading their people and acting in contravention of international law? If not, democracy (in the sense of leaders acting on behalf of their people in good faith — and not for alterior motives) is shown to be even more of a sham than is normally visible...

(PS Intriguing link: I for one was unaware of that particular backdrop to the war.)



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by pause4thought
 




Yet once a given leader has lost power surely there ought still to be some means by which they answer for misleading their people and acting in contravention of international law?


I agree, but, those that come after will never really punish the deeds of their predecessors because one day they may have to take the same action themselves. The only real power to do so would be that of the people, meaning that we need to make these types of actions so politically disastorious that fear of their public flogging would become the true motivation against said action. But, for the "people" to have this power, as it is our right in a democracy, we would need to take back control of media and the other tools that they use. It can be said that the UN itself has become one of these tools. Im not sure what to do about it except try to keep people informed as you have done in your OP.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:44 PM
link   
reply to post by axiomuser
 



...those that come after will never really punish the deeds of their predecessors because one day they may have to take the same action themselves.

I know where you're coming from, naturally. Yet if there is impunity simply because successive governments are no different, that would entail a complete loss of integrity in the upper echelons — as "the same action", i.e. large-scale government action based on alterior motives — would belie the undermining of democracy itself, would it not?



The only real power to do so would be that of the people, meaning that we need to make these types of actions so politically disastorious that fear of their public flogging would become the true motivation against said action.

Or prosecution. (Something about the rule of law).

Or is 'the contract' between a government and its people simply too vague?


But, for the "people" to have this power, as it is our right in a democracy, we would need to take back control of media and the other tools that they use.

Maybe. Maybe not. A lot of people are waking up.


It can be said that the UN itself has become one of these tools...

Undoubtably. A (semi-controllable) rubber stamp whose impression is held up to the media — even when it was never actually put in place.



[edit on 30/6/10 by pause4thought]



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:50 PM
link   
The war was illegal. Not to mention illogical. It was a total choice and Bush and Blair LIED. Willfully and intentionally. In fact, some of their lies they themselves retracted, but hey guess what? No one noticed. Yellowcake forgeries. UN plane false flag, false reports of mass graves and WMD, cherry picked intel, and purposeful fearmongering on the people so they'd buy the tripe. The list goes on and on. And the same exact thing is happening now, for at least the third time against Iran. And next will be Syria. I hope enough information comes out to hang them all. They're traitors to their countries.



posted on Jun, 30 2010 @ 11:54 PM
link   
reply to post by axiomuser
 

They will never punish their predecessors because they all work for the same master. No excuse and not a factor in bringing justice. That is exactly the reason why war tribunals and trials brought by uninvolved parties (good luck with that one here) has traditionally been the standard way of dealing with things like this.



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 12:01 AM
link   
reply to post by ~Lucidity
 



UN plane false flag, false reports of mass graves and WMD, cherry picked intel, and purposeful fearmongering on the people so they'd buy the tripe. The list goes on and on.

And the reward?-


In January 2008, it was confirmed that Blair would be joining investment bank JPMorgan Chase in a "senior advisory capacity" and that he would advise Zurich Financial Services on climate change. Some sources have claimed that his role at JP Morgan will pay more than $1m (£500,000) a year. This additional salary will contribute to annual earnings of over £7m.

Blair also gives lectures and earns up to US$250,000 for a 90-minute speech...

Blair's links with, and receipt of an undisclosed sum from, UI Energy Corporation, a Korean company with oil interests in northern Iraq, have also been subject to media comment in the UK...

In March 2010 the Advisory Committee on Business Appointments revealed that 14 months after resigning as Prime Minister, Blair had acted as a paid business consultant to an oil firm with interests in Iraq. For 20 months Blair had claimed market sensitivity should prevent the deal's disclosure. The news raised concerns that he had profited financially from contacts he made during the Iraq war...

Source



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:22 AM
link   
you might want to have a sick bag ready - check this out

news.bbc.co.uk...


What a world...



posted on Jul, 1 2010 @ 01:28 AM
link   
On a (slightly) related note, it is in the Daily Mail this morning that a friend of Dr David Kelly is saying that he couldn't have slit his wrists as he had an injury that would have made this difficult he also had an apparent distaste for tablets..

www.dailymail.co.uk...

Looks like the Daily Mail have their eye on this story here are a few other snippets from the past

www.dailymail.co.uk...

www.dailymail.co.uk...

This must be adding to Mr Blairs haunted dreams I imagine..



new topics

top topics



 
1

log in

join