Iraq war inquiry told attorney general changed mind over legality of invasion
Former Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith. Photograph: Guardian
13 Jan 2010 Former cabinet secretary Lord Turnbull says Lord Goldsmith's advice to cabinet was different to version he gave Tony Blair
The attorney general materially" changed his advice on the legality of military action against Iraq a few days before the invasion, the inquiry into the war was told today.
Lord Turnbull, the cabinet secretary at the time, who gave the inquiry unprecedented insights into how the Blair government took the country to war in 2003, said there were significant differences between the final legal opinion Lord Goldsmith presented to the cabinet, and an earlier version he gave privately to Tony Blair.
"It was not, in my view, a summary of what had been produced 10 days earlier. It was materially different in some respects because of the passage of time. Certain things had changed," he said.
Blair has argued that the short statement Goldsmith subsequently gave the cabinet on the eve of the invasion was a "fair summary" of the attorney general's latest legal advice. However, it is now known that the only official legal opinion Goldsmith drew up was the one dated 7 March, which contained serious caveats about the lawfulness of an invasion.
Snip
Concerns in Whitehall about Blair's delay in addressing the key issue of the legality of an invasion was expressed by Sir Kevin Tebbitt, the top civil servant in the MoD, a document released by the inquiry today showed.
Snip
He said there was a "failure of imagination" to consider the potential downsides of toppling Saddam. The one exception was Robin Cook, who resigned. "I'm sorry to say he's not around to take the credit for that," Turnbull said....>>>>>
Alastair Campbell is wrong: yesterday's Blair-Bush revelations were crucial
13 Jan 2010 Now we know that while Tony Blair may have been genuine in his efforts to pursue a diplomatic route he was so determined to remove Saddam Hussein that he was committed from an early stage to a military route
So, once again, we are treated to some "unadulterated, bilious shite" on Alastair Campbell's blog today.
OK, that language is a bit over the top. But those are the exact words Campbell once used in public to dismiss a Guardian piece I had written.
Now Tony Blair's former communications director is denouncing the media in general for its coverage of his appearance before the Iraq inquiry yesterday. He has taken exception to the way the press highlighted a series of notes Blair wrote to George Bush in the run-up to the war in 2003.
Snip
In his blog Campbell writes:
There were several references in my diary too to private notes sent by TB to George Bush, so why on earth the media were presenting this as some great new revelation says more about their addiction to the whooshery of "breaking news" journalism than it does about the diplomatic exchanges at the time.
Campbell then cites two excerpts from his diary to show how he went into great detail about what Blair wrote to Bush....>>>>>
13 Jan 2010 Alastair Campbell: how Bible prepared me for Iraq inquiry
Former No 10 press chief took sustenance from Psalm 56 before appearance at Chilcot inquiry...>>>>>
Campbell at Iraq war inquiry: 'I don't think this inquiry will ever resolve this'
13 January 2010 Michael White on Alastair Campbell at the Chilcott inquiry
Chilcot inquiry casts new doubts on Iraq war
Alastair Campbell tells Chilcot inquiry that Tony Blair made secret pledge to George Bush
At last, we know the truth.
13th January 2010 The Iraq debacle was dreamt up by two crazy men on a sofa
Over the years, I have written a fair number of pieces about Alastair Campbell, Tony Blair's spin doctor.
I'm not his greatest fan. I believe he was a malign influence on British public life, particularly in relation to the Iraq war.
But until now I had assumed that Mr Campbell was essentially a rough-and-tumble former red-top tabloid journalist and bully who had a loose relationship with the truth....>>>>>
Blair froze out Iraq war dissenters
14 January 2010 Tony Blair froze out anyone with concerns about the Iraq war and was not challenged on the issue by a Cabinet that had been "conditioned" to accept that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, the Iraq inquiry has been told.
Lord Turnbull, who as Cabinet Secretary was Britain's most senior civil servant, said that Mr Blair largely surrounded himself with those who would not disagree with him, while those who did have concerns were given almost no time to discuss the issue.
Snip
He said that Mr Blair had been a "regime changer" from the outset, but felt obliged to seek UN permission for the invasion.
Other secret documents released yesterday revealed the extent of doubts within the military over the legality of the invasion without a second UN resolution. Sir Kevin Tebbitt, the most senior civil servant in the Ministry of Defence, wrote to Lord Turnbull to say that "full UN cover" was "devoutly to be desired" to resolve the legal question-marks. That never came....>>>>>
Tony Blair failed to see Iran threat, Lord Turnbull tells inquiry
January 14, 2010 Tony Blair was so committed to overthrowing Saddam Hussein that he failed to foresee that it could make the Middle East more dangerous by “vastly” increasing the power of Iran, his most senior civil servant said yesterday.
Lord Turnbull told the Iraq inquiry: “The question that strikes me, entirely with hindsight, is how did you improve regional stability by kicking out Saddam Hussein but vastly increasing the power of Iran by putting 15 million Shias in charge of the next-door country and have we actually ended up with a more dangerous region?”....>>>>>
Blair's Iraq war motives queried
January 14, 2010 THE British Government's justification for launching the Iraq war has been undermined after two inquiries cast new light on the build-up to war.
Delivering the first independent assessment of the legality of the war, a Dutch inquiry has found the military action had no sound mandate in international law.
Snip
The Dutch inquiry made it clear that Dutch support for the war had been based on information about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction provided by the British and American governments.
This has proved to be misleading and flawed.
Philippe Sands, QC, a professor of international law, who gave evidence to the Dutch inquiry, said: ''There has been no other independent assessment on the legality of the war in Iraq and the findings of this inquiry are unambiguous.''
The 551-page report said UN resolutions in the 1990s, prior to the outbreak of war, gave no authority to the United States and Britain to invade Iraq.
''The military action had no sound mandate under international law,'' it said.....>>>>>
Dutch prime minister concedes his support for 2003 Iraq invasion needed stronger mandate
Dutch Prime Minister Jan Peter Balkenende conceded Wednesday, "with the knowledge of now," that a stronger legal mandate was needed for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 - and his decision to support it.
The statement in a letter to parliament appeared to have saved Balkenende's 3-year-old ruling coalition from collapse.
Balkenende enraged the Labor Party, a coalition partner, on Tuesday by dismissing the findings of a government-commissioned study that criticized his coalition in 2003 for supporting the Iraq invasion.
Labour lawmakers were particularly angry that Balkenende appeared to speak also for their party when he rejected the report Tuesday.
Labour was not in the 2003 coalition and always opposed Dutch support for the attack....>>>>>
Report answers questions on Iraq
The report by the Davids' committee. Photo Roel Rozenburg
13 January 2010 Willibrord Davids was the chairman of the special committee of inquiry charged with the investigation of the run-up to the invasion of Iraq in 2003. He is also a master of understatement. When he presented his report to prime-minister Jan Peter Balkenende on Tuesday, he dryly pointed out that the “sturdy tome” he bore had only one thing in common with a liber amicorum or festschrift, a gift commonly presented to friends in academic circles singing praises of its recepient: the element of surprise.
Little did Balkenende know then that Davids’ committee had lambasted him for showing “little or no” leadership in the run-up to the invasion.
Snip
The report answers several questions that have burned on many a politician’s lips for years. Below, four of the foremost.
How was the Netherlands treated by its allies?........
Was the legal argument made by the former Balkenede government in justifying the invasion correct?........
How did the cabinet come to its decision supporting the invasion?........
Was the Netherlands perhaps militarily involved in the invasion after all?.........>>>>>
Balkenende and Iraq, Davids and Goliath
13 January 2010 The investigation into the Dutch support for the war against Saddam Hussein is seven years late. However, some comfort can be found in a comparison with our traditional ally, the United Kingdom. The report published by the Davids Commission includes surprisingly critical conclusions, whereas the British Goliath, the mother of all democracies, has just embarked on its fifth inquiry.
The Dutch have an incorrigible preference for bringing up the rear, and the inquiry into Dutch support for the US-led invasion of Iraq was no exception to this rule. A full seven years after the British parliament’s Foreign Affairs Committee published its first report, the independent Davids Commission was only just getting started.
However, in July 2003, a few months after the invasion of Iraq, that first UK parliamentary commission got no further than expressing serious doubts about then prime minister Tony Blair’s stated motives for going to war: the serious threat to international security posed by Sadam Hussein’s Iraq and its alleged weapons of mass destruction. Both the prime minister and the intelligence services involved refused to cooperate with the inquiry.....>>>>>
Weapons inspection
14 Jan 2010 The right questions to ask the former prime minister
THERE have already been so many inquiries into the Iraq war (including one in the Netherlands that this week judged the invasion to have been illegal), and it was all so long ago, that many people thought the latest British probe, under Sir John Chilcot, would prove pointless. In fact it has already been informative, not least because some of the soldiers, spooks and diplomats who have given evidence have grown franker since retirement. On January 12th Sir John’s panel questioned Alastair Campbell, formerly the government’s main spin doctor. His testimony was a telling rehearsal for the imminent appearance of the star witness: his old boss, Tony Blair....>>>>>
Campbell attacked for criticism of Short's Iraq stance
Lord Turnbull was the UK's top civil servant during the war
13 Jan 2010 Ex-No 10 spokesman Alastair Campbell has been attacked for suggesting Clare Short was barred from key Iraq meetings because she could not be trusted.
Former head of the Civil Service, Lord Turnbull, said his remarks were "very poor" and Ms Short's critical stance on the war should have been respected.
He said Tony Blair must explain claims that he would have backed the war even if he had known Iraq had no WMD.
Mr Blair is due to give evidence to the inquiry in the next few weeks....>>>>>
'Dutch Iraq war inquiry colours UK investigation'
14 January 2010 The findings of the Dutch Davids Commission may have far reaching effects on Britain’s own investigation into the legality of the war in Iraq.
Listen to a Newsline interview with Professor Philippe Sands:
The commission concluded there were no legal grounds for the Netherlands to support the Iraq war. Some experts say it will make it very hard for the UK government to maintain that the war was legal.
Unambiguous
British Professor of Law Philippe Sands, who was interviewed by the Davids Commission which led the inquiry, told Radio Netherlands Worldwide that the findings of the Dutch inquiry are clear and unambiguous.
“They concluded that the war was unlawful, so I think the findings are very helpful on the international issue of legality”, Mr Sands says. “It’s the first independent assessment by anybody, anywhere in the world, of the view of the legality of the war. The fact that the report has been written by distinguished law experts gives it authority”....More Here
No comments:
Post a Comment