UK AG legal advice on the war in Iraq is released!

[Darat]

But it looks as if the smoking gun ended up not being a smoking gun but rather a typical "I'm a lawyer so I'll cover all the angles" initial briefing.

Rather disappointing see: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/28/legal.pdf for the full document.

(Edited to add.)

Background to the release can be found here: http://politics.guardian.co.uk/election/story/0,15803,1472112,00.html and http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492439.stm

[Darat]

And a QC's annotated version: http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2005/04/27/Iraq_legal_advice_.pdf

[a_unique_person]

The Tories want to have their cake and eat it too. If they had been in power, they would have done exactly what Blaid did about the war.

[richardm]

They would. In fact they're on the record again today saying that they were and still are satisfied that the war was legal. Although they have in the last few minutes shifted that position a trifle and are now bleating that the attorney general changed his mind.

To me, it seems quite clear that this is a document setting out both sides of the argument, with the AG coming down firmly on one side before the war was launched. I'd expect most lawyers in that position to do the same thing - weight the arguments carefully before coming to a decision.

[Jaggy Bunnet]

I think the Tories/Lib Dems have been set up here. By refusing to release the advice previously, Labour gave the impression there was something in it they didn't want public. Both opposition parties, but especially the Lib Dems made a big deal out of it and how it proved Tony couldn't be trusted.

Now they release it a week before polling day and it supports what they have said all along. The advice was clear and it was exactly what they said it was, i.e. it was legal to invade without a second resolution. The Lib Dems / Tories are too committed to their position to accept this and end up arguing that the advice changed because a second resolution was not mentioned after it was clear a second resolution was not possible.

Why are all the smart strategists on the same side?

[richardm]

Have you ever thought about going into politics, JB? I think with that level of deviousness you'd be good at it.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by richardm
To me, it seems quite clear that this is a document setting out both sides of the argument, with the AG coming down firmly on one side before the war was launched. I'd expect most lawyers in that position to do the same thing - weight the arguments carefully before coming to a decision.

The AG coming down just before the war was launched.

The most amusing thing has been Jack Straw's defence:

"The Attorney General explicitly said that things could happen that would change the requirement to obtain a second UN resolution..."

"So what changed, Foreign Secretary?"

"Well, we didn't get a second resolution..."

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Matabiri
The AG coming down just before the war was launched.

The most amusing thing has been Jack Straw's defence:

"The Attorney General explicitly said that things could happen that would change the requirement to obtain a second UN resolution..."

"So what changed, Foreign Secretary?"

"Well, we didn't get a second resolution..."

Would you rather they went to war on a current legal opinion or one obtained some time in advance and not updated for changing circumstances?

I have a theory that Jack Straw is a handicap that the Labour party have to carry in order to make the contest a bit closer, a bit like good horses having to carry extra weight.

Nothing else can explain someone stupid enough to refer to a "requirement" to get a second resolution that never existed. And he is meant to be on the government's side?!?

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
Would you rather they went to war on a current legal opinion or one obtained some time in advance and not updated for changing circumstances?

Not at all; it would be nice, however, if the claims made for the decisions actually represented reality.

The failure to obtain a second resolution, for example, in no way affects whether or not one should be obtained. And the second part of the argument, that Blix had identified that Iraq was far more in breach of earlier resolutions than previously thought, is heavily undermined by his other statements, that Iraq was now co-operating and providing evidence of disarmament (c.f. Blair's statements that, "Despicable as I find Saddam's regime, it's not too late for him to save it"). Blair and his government continually moved the goalposts*.

Nothing else can explain someone stupid enough to refer to a "requirement" to get a second resolution that never existed. And he is meant to be on the government's side?!?

I was paraphrasing. He probably didn't use that actual word.

(* Edit to add: the accusation is that the decision to go to war had already been taken some time before, and all the legal advice, intelligence etc. was "interpreted" to justify this decision, rather than be presented properly and fully taken into account while the decision was made in Cabinet and Parliament.)

[Jaggy Bunnet]

Originally posted by Matabiri
The failure to obtain a second resolution, for example, in no way affects whether or not one should be obtained.

Agreed

However an opinion that the position would be clearer with a specific resolution authorising the use of force, in no way means that action is NOT justified without such a resolution.

Which is what the attorney general said in the leaked document.

[Matabiri]

Originally posted by Jaggy Bunnet
However an opinion that the position would be clearer with a specific resolution authorising the use of force, in no way means that action is NOT justified without such a resolution.

Also true. I just thought it was amusing that it was the first thing that Jack Straw was mentioning amongst "what had changed that meant the second resolution was not required".

[demon]

A couple of days ago on "News At Ten", that awful sycophant Andrew Marr said:

"For two years people have suspected that somehow the Attorney General believed the war to be illegal, and was bullied, and suborned, and pressured into changing that view. What we've learned today is that that was not the case, that his original view was a bit more balanced..."

This is a simply outrageous summary of what we've learned so far. Few serious commentators have proposed that the Attorney General asserted the war was illegal. The issues have always been the extent to which Lord Goldsmith had doubts, the extent to which those doubts were communicated to cabinet colleagues, and the reasons why any doubts might subsequently have disappeared from his advice to cabinet. The latest revelations did +not+ teach us that Goldsmith was not bullied, suborned or pressured into changing his view. Similarly, the suggestion that Goldsmith's March 7 view was merely "a bit more balanced" than his March 17 view is simply absurd.

Why did Goldsmith feel required to visit USA to seek further legal clarification and advice ( and come back a convert ), instead of making a trip also to Paris , Bonn , and Moscow , to seek their considered legal opinion also . No-one has asked anything about that .
The government can’t deal with the allegations and disclosures as they are - because the critics are correct - so they set-up a strawman and artificially inflate longstanding charges. Suddenly the previously unpublished legal advice is billed as the “final nail� or the “smoking gun�, rather than simply just another piece of incriminating evidence that damns the Blair government.

Illustrating the saying that career liars need really good memories, both Blair and Straw were quick to reassure everyone at the time that UNSCR 1441 did not provide an automatic trigger for war - something which they and the media now seem to have largely forgotten.
"In the event of Saddam refusing to cooperate or being in breach, there will be a further discussion, as we always said there would be. To those who fear this resolution is just an automatic trigger point, without any further discussion, paragraph 12 of the resolution makes it clear that this is not the case."

Straw's flip-flopping on 1441's remit was a pale imitation of the Attorney-General's - on some days he argued that in the event of a material breach by Saddam, the Security Council had to 'consider the situation' but not necessarily pass a second resolution; on other days he recognised that only the Security Council and not individual members, could determine whether there had been a material breach under 1441.

Straw wrote to the Foreign Affairs Committee:-

"It is imortant to stress that SCR 1441 did not revive the 678 authorisation immediately upon its adoption. There was no 'automaticity'. The resolution afforded Iraq a final opportunity to comply and it provided for any failure by Iraq to be considered by the Security Council."

Masters of mendacity both.

Not to mention both Negraponte & Greenstock.
Negroponte (U.S.): "As we have said on numerous occasions to Council members, this resolution contains no "hidden triggers" and no "automaticity" with respect to the use of force. If there is a further Iraqi breach, reported to the Council by UNMOVIC, the IAEA or a Member State, the matter will return to the Council for discussions as required in paragraph 12."
Greenstock (U.K.): "We heard loud and clear during the negotiations the concerns about "automaticity" and "hidden triggers" - the concern that on a decision so crucial we should not rush into military action; that on a decision so crucial any Iraqi violations should be discussed by the Council. Let me be equally clear in response, as a co-sponsor with the United States of the text we have just adopted. There is no "automaticity" in this resolution. If there is a further Iraqi breach of its disarmament obligations, the matter will return to the Council for discussion as required in paragraph 12. We would expect the Security Council then to meet its responsibilities."

http://www.globalissues.org/Geopolitics/MiddleEast/Iraq/BuildingTheCase.asp