'No legal case' for Iraq invasion
Human rights lawyers have claimed that the UK had no legal case for its 2003 invasion of Iraq, in a submission to the Chilcot Inquiry seen by the Gazette.
The Solicitors International Human Rights Group found fault with the UK government’s two main justifications for the invasion, in a written submission to Sir John Chilcot’s inquiry into the Iraq conflict.
The first was that a 2002 UN Security Council Resolution ‘revived’ the authority to use force against Iraq provided by an earlier resolution. The submission’s authors said that this earlier resolution did not give an ‘open-ended authority to use force in respect of any resolution enacted at a later date’, and so could not be used to provide authority for the invasion.
The government’s second justification for the invasion was that the 2002 resolution gave Iraq a ‘final opportunity’ to comply with its disarmament obligations or face the consequences. The submission’s authors pointed to statements made at the time of the resolution’s adoption that it was for the Security Council, and not member states, to determine whether Iraq had made use of that ‘final opportunity’, and whether action should be taken. The resolution did not allow for a prolonged military intervention or regime change, the submission contends.
Comments
Is there any realistic chance of Blair facing charges?
I'm not legally trained.
The Chilcot transcripts convince me that much was done by Blair et al that was immoral, negligent and not in accordance with official guidelines on good practice. That said - on the evidence to date - is there any realistic chance of putting Blair and co on trial in any civil or criminal court in the UK?
1776 reasions to go to war
I fancy that, however it may have been achieved, GW Bush was steered absolutely by those who advised him, those who were also a part of the political lobby group known as the Project for the New American Century (PNAC).
To read those named on the PNAC founding Statement of Principles is illuminating: http://bit.ly/9gOQcJ – The names included Jeb Bush (brother of GW), Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby (Scooter), Dan Quayle, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz amongst others.
PNAC’s stated aim was to make the case and rally support for: “American global leadership, [to] shape circumstances before crises emerge, and to meet threats before they become dire”.
To President Clinton they wrote: ‘The only acceptable strategy is one that [removes] Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy. http://bit.ly/a82Sr9
In their report ‘Rebuilding America’s Defenses’ http://bit.ly/bU2a0F (PDF file) they wrote: ‘Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor. (Report-P51 PDF-P63)
On the 11th of September 2001 Robert Kagan, co-founder of PNAC, wrote in The Washington Post a piece titled ‘We Must Fight This War’ proclaiming “an attack far more awful than Pearl Harbor” http://bit.ly/9HvCSZ
It is against this background that we must comprehend Britain’s part is cast. It would be clear the the US was primed to react to the attack of 9/11 in the manner prescribed by those who dominated the political administration and in a manner that had too been expressed with resounding clarity.
For Blair here was a simple choice. Would we have stopped them? I doubt it. Would the world be a better place with the US operating in isolation, without seeking any backing from the UN, without the veil of credence offered by its old comrade and diplomatic good cop. Take Guantanamo Bay, Abu Ghraib, Fallujah, extraordinary rendition, water-boarding, torture by proxy, shock and awe, black sites, depleted uranium, cluster bombs for some examples and imagine how the US would have behaved if utterly unrestrained.
If Blair had stood-back and demanded a clear UN mandate to attack, how would the situation have stood if then Britain was immediately struck by its own ‘Pearl Harbour’ and perhaps one of even more devastating effect?
But; who knows what is a man’s heart?
Executive Powers
The facts of going to sanction any military force was public and scrutinised by leading well regarded members of the judiciary and MOD, not to mention that a prime minister did have authority to use force against Saddam if real breaches direct or indirect did occur, and as Tony Benn said prior to the agreement to go to war, in an interview with Saddam 'Millions of people around the world do not wish to see another war' -
Would Blair`s excruciatingly
Would Blair`s excruciatingly self-serving performance (the appropriate word) in the Inquiry have stood up to forensic cross examination by a criminal-law QC ? I fervently believe not. Cold hard facts (like the fact that the invading force has never kept records of civilian casualties in this oh- so- moral crusade), would tear Blair`s masterly contrivance of faux-sincerity and subtle dissembling- to shreds. Blair`s parrot-cry of " It was the Right Thing to Do !" would cut no ice in a proper Court.