Iraq WMD, Case for War

What was the case for war? How was it justified?

Friday, February 05, 2010

All 27 UK Foreign Affairs lawyers: Iraq war unlawful. Obama, politicians, US media: no response

All the lawyers in the UK’s Foreign Affairs Department concluded the US/UK invasion of Iraq was an unlawful War of Aggression. Their expert advice is the most qualified to make that legal determination; all 27 of them were in agreement. This powerful judgment of unlawful war follows the Dutch government’s recent unanimous report and UN Secretary General Kofi Annan’s clear statements.

This stunning information was disclosed at the UK Chilcot inquiry by the testimony of Foreign Affairs leading legal advisor, Sir Michael Wood, who added that the reply from Prime Minister Tony Blair’s office to his legal department’s professional work was chastisement for putting their unanimous legal opinion in writing.

Sir Michael testified that Foreign Secretary Jack Straw preferred to take the legal position that the laws governing war were vague and open to broad interpretation: "He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn't used to people taking such a firm position.”

Mr. Straw’s opinion is an Orwellian lie of the crystal-clear letter and spirit of the UN Charter that outlawed wars of choice in 1945. The UN Charter forbids all use of force except when explicitly authorized by the UN Security Council, or in a narrow definition of self-defense upon an armed attack by another nation’s government. This is arguably the single most important and clear law on the planet, the victory of the generation who sacrificed during World War 2, and damning criminal testimony for anyone in government to claim that this law is vague.

Violation of the laws to prevent war, a War of Aggression and a Crime Against Peace, are also arguably to worst crime a nation can commit.

...

Moreover, the US and UK “legal argument” is in further Orwellian opposition to their UN Ambassadors’ statements when 1441 was passed that this did not authorize any use of force:

John Negroponte, US Ambassador to the UN:

[T]his 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.

Sir Jeremy Greenstock, UK Ambassador to the UN:

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... 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.

The Chilcot inquiry was initiated from public outrage against UK participation in the Iraq War, with public opinion having to engage a second time to force hearings to become public rather than closed and secret. The hearings were not authorized to consider criminal charges, which is the next battle for UK public opinion.

...

Concentrated US corporate media will not report the Chilcot inquiry “emperor has no clothes” facts and conclusion that the current US wars are unlawful. The US Senate Church Committee revealed CIA infiltration of US corporate media to disinform the American public to support US political agendas. ...

- posted by Editor @ 9:23 AM

Tuesday, February 02, 2010

Clare Short: Blair misled us and took UK into an illegal war | UK news | guardian.co.uk

Tony Blair and Lord Goldsmith, his attorney general, misled parliament and the cabinet before Britain, to its "eternal shame", joined the US-led invasion of Iraq, Clare Short told the Chilcot inquiry today.

During nearly three hours of testimony, the then international development secretary, who resigned soon after the March 2003 invasion as a result of what she called broken promises, described the atmosphere within the government during the runup to war. It was chaotic and fraught, she said, adding: "We were in a bit of a lunatic asylum."

...

She said she had been unaware of Goldsmith's "doubts and his changes of opinion" over the legality of the war. "I think he misled the cabinet," Short said. "He certainly misled me, but people let it through … I think for the attorney general to come and say there's unequivocal legal authority to go war was misleading."

The role of the attorney general is "completely unsafe", she told the inquiry later. "Poor old Peter Goldsmith," she said, pointing out that he had been a commercial lawyer. "He didn't tell us the truth … but he was in a very difficult position.

"There was a lot of misleading parliament by the prime minister of the day … I'm not saying he was insincere. I think he was willing to be deceitful about it because he thought it was right."

Short referred to the "secretiveness and deception" as Blair and his "mates" closed down normal communications. "I was conned," she said, describing Blair's assurances to her that he would persuade George Bush to publish a road map towards a Middle East peace settlement and press for a Palestinian state by 2005.

"I don't think we influenced anything," Short added, referring to the US. "We ended up humiliating ourselves [with] unconditional, poodle-like adoration." ...

- posted by Editor @ 9:58 PM