War Law New Labour Scandals

""My views accord with the advice that ....the Attorney General gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)"

Secret Paragraph in Resignation Letter of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, law officer at The Foreign Office 18 March 2003 See Channel 4 News

Handsard March 17th 2003, Lord Goldsmith's A4 view on legality of the war

BBC Goldsmith Denies War Advice Claim

Butler Report

War Lord : how Lord Goldsmith's legal advice on the War chopped and changed

Just two days before the bombs started to fall on Iraq on 20th March 2003, the Cabinet was presented with one side of A4 setting out the Attorney General's legal opinion.

The Government's senior legal advisor, loyal Blairite Lieutenant Lord Goldsmith, assured the Cabinet that the war was legal without a new UN Resolution explicitly authorising force.

But it appears he had changed his mind, not once, but twice.

First he thought that a war would be illegal without a new resolution.

Then he changed his mind to say that it would be safer to have a second resolution, but might be possible without one.

Then he changed again to say that there was no need at all for a new resolution.

None of these changes of mind were revealed to the Cabinet, Parliament, or the public.

Prior to 7 March 2003

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, believes that war would be illegal without a new UN Resolution explicitly authorising force. This explains why the UK, unlike the US, is so eager to get a new resolution, and to blame France when President Chirac said he will wield his veto for the time being.

(Our best evidence for this is the leaked 'secret paragraph' in the resignation Letter of of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a senior law officer at The Foreign Office. The key paragraph was censored by New Labour.).

Are You Disappointed With Local Relationships? You Can Find Your Love In The Other Country With Our International Online Dating Service FirstClickFriend.com. | Sing Up Now And Get Your Extra Money With Our New Pay Per Profile Affiliate Program | We Have The Biggest Collection Of Funny Riddles For You To Laugh On Funny-Jokes-Portal.com

7 March 2003

Lord Goldsmith, sends Blair a 13 page legal opinion on the possible use of force against Iraq.

Goldsmith warns that it would be safer to have a new UN resolution explicitly sanctioning military action.

At a minimum, for the war to be legal, there must be 'hard evidence' (quote from Butler Report) for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity to disarm under Security Council Resolution 1441.

This is inconvenient, because at the time, Saddam Hussein appears to be cooperating with the UN weapons inspectors under Hans Blix.

New Labour has refused to publish the March 7 document. It was circulated to only a very few senior ministers – not even to the Cabinet, possibly in breach of ministerial guidelines. It was shown in secret to the Butler Enquiry, which is how we know this much about it.

13 March 2003

Lord Goldsmith meets Lord Falconer, then a Home Office minister (now Lord Chancellor), and Baroness Morgan, Blair's director of political and government relations.

Bingo! They conclude that an invasion would be legal after all, even without a new UN Security Council Resolution.

It just shows that three heads are better than one.

The result of this meeting is the 17 March Sheet of A4 Parliamentary answer on the legality of War, but later there is confusion about who actually wrote it.

Goldsmith told the Butler Enquiry ‘they set out my view", referring to Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan.

Later on, Goldsmith says "It is nonsense to suggest that
No 10 wrote the statement.”

14 March 2003

The Attorney’s Legal Secretary writes to the Prime Minister's Private Secretary seeking confirmation that "it is unequivocally the Prime Minister's view that Iraq was in material breach of its obligations under 1441".

The Prime Minister replies that it is precisely his view.

17 March 2003

Goldsmith makes an oral presentation to Cabinet.

A one page Parliamentary answer is published setting out his legal opinion. It makes no mention of the Lord Goldsmith’s concerns about the possible need of new Security Council Resolution. In fact, it implies something quite different:

"Resolution 1441 would in terms have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended."

At the time, everyone assumes that the short answer is a summary of a much longer legal document drawn up by Lord Goldsmith.

Two years will pass before we learn that we went to war on a page of A4.

March 20, 2003

Bombs start to fall on Iraq.

March 10 2005

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the cabinet secretary, tells the Commons Public Administration Committee:

"There is not a longer version of that advice [The May 17 2003 parliamentary answer]. This is the definitive statement of his views ... [The attorney general] has said that that was not a summary."