More like this
Blair and Goldsmith: odd way to treat a lawyer
Did Tony Blair simply ignore the attorney general’s legal advice on invading Iraq when it didn’t suit him?
The recall of Tony Blair to the Chilcot inquiry, announced last week, is likely to prove the major credibility test for him and his record on Iraq – and for the inquiry itself.
The focus of the cross-examination, which will be held in public towards the end of next month, is his relationship with the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, and his handling of Goldsmith's legal advice about going to war.
One eminent lawyer I have spoken to said: "He [Blair] just seemed to think he could treat Goldsmith as his private counsel, his personal brief, and not a senior law officer serving the government and parliament as a whole."
Why, for instance, did the attorney general never fully address the Cabinet on the legality of what British forces were ordered to do in Iraq? He attended the full meeting of Cabinet on March 13, 2003 - two days before the invasion - but was not asked to speak.
There is more than a whiff of a suspicion that the Chilcot panel has been prompted to recall Blair and other key witnesses, including his then foreign secretary Jack Straw, by less than flattering reports contained in the WikiLeaks revelations.
A US dispatch from a member of the Bush administration during a visit to UK, published by WikiLeaks at the end of November, said that he had received assurances from a British MoD official, John Day, the director of policy, that "US security interests would be protected" in the Chilcot report. This has led to concerns that the inquiry would be accused of being a whitewash - a charge which has stuck to both the Hutton and Butler reports on Iraq.
But whatever the reason, Chilcot has now decided to extend the deadline for publishing the report to the spring. And because of powerful representations made to him personally by members of the legal profession as well politicians, he will examine more closely the role and record of the attorney general, and ask why Blair and Straw apparently chose to ignore his legal advice when it didn't suit them.
Since the first round of interviews by Chilcot, several key documents have come to light. One is a memo from Lord Goldsmith in early January 2003 in which he states that a second UN resolution would be needed, in addition to UNSCR 1441 of the previous November, to make action against Iraq legal. Blair himself pencilled on the note, "I just don't understand this," to which an aide added, "Specifically said we did not need further advice on this matter".
By early March, Lord Goldsmith was writing that after consulting US colleagues he now realised that a second UN resolution would not be needed to support action after all - though the UK could still be open to international indictment.
Goldsmith put his new view in summary form, which was put in a folder for the Cabinet to peruse at its March 17 meeting. Goldsmith attended that meeting but was not invited to rehearse the legal argument, it is understood.
The inquiry is now being pressed to obtain all Lord Goldsmith's legal opinions on the war in full - including the long one where he thought it illegal without an enabling UN resolution, and the full argument about his change of mind two months later.
It is also being asked to inquire why the attorney general did not brief the Cabinet and parliament fully about the legal argument in the run-up to the incursion into Iraq.
This is particularly important because the legal officer at the Foreign Office, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, had written that the operation without UN mandate was illegal - as she eloquently explained at one of the Chilcot hearings - and resigned the moment battle was joined.
Sir John Chilcot's job is far from finished. ·
Comments are now closed on this article
Comments
he was so far up the americans backside he did what he was told and damn the rest of us to which he was financially well rewarded never mind the lives of our soldiers and he is still milking the system
Chilcot may do well to simply find out who paid for Tony Blairs college banger. Saddam was a threat to the the Arab puppet regimes, that are Israels first line of defence. But the 'democratic' sheikhs now have to reckon with the very much more cleverer Iranians instead. Dumbya and Blair have simply facilitated the rise of another Suleiman in the time frame of the ME, quite apart from now opening up our own nation to the cause n effect of 'depleted' uranium dirty bombs and the deaths and suffering of many millions.
We submitted to Chilcot at the outset of the Enquiry that he should investigate alternative motives to those Blair gave for joining the invasion.
The most obvious has become ever clearer in the intervening time - that is the long-term financial incentive.
By supporting the USA Blair ensured his standing there with the rewards that have followed.
We wrote and circulated to the media in 2004 a 'fairy tale' WHAT IF? Our contention was and 6 years on still is that the enormous hike in the world oil price following the instability of the invasion would bring greatly increased riches to Middle Eastern states and to the Bush family interests there and in Texas. Any rewards to a compliant ally were a mere nothing in this vast pool.
Chilcot should investigate these angles as any other motivation is still clearly untenable.
Did Tony Blair simply ignore the attorney generalâ??s legal advice on invading Iraq when it didnâ??t suit him?
Errmm - yes, so it seems.
When acting professionally (as Blair was) on behalf of a company or public authority, you can't just ignore your legal advice however much you disagree with it-on a personal basis. If you incur public costs or cause other damage by ignoring authoritative professional advice when holding public office then surely you are personally liable? Would be interesting if counsel's advice was sought on this particular issue!
Elizabeth Wilmshurst showed herself to have personal stahdards and integrity - something that Blair, Straw, Mandelson & Co. never demonstrated so clearly.
Mr Blair has made millions of pounds. Straw & Mandelson are also sitting pretty. What has happened to Ms Wilmshurst? Does she regret her actions?