THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

What was the simple matter of fact that you bolded supposed to demonstrate?
The empathy is in the overall post and its being tarnished by your idiotic bickering. Rolling Eyes

OCCOM BILL wrote:

Revel, dear; when you post provocative opinions on a political forum you are bound to provoke responses. Some you'll like. Some you won't. I don't believe anyone here wishes to hurt your feelings so try not to take it so personally. If I paid heed to what many of the liberal thinkers here think of me (you, probably); I'd be suicidal. If you have a problem with disagreement; it is you who needs to look the other way. You cannot expect others to censor their posts to fit your ideals. That's why members aren't, or shouldn't be allowed to tell people to shut up and that's why I take issue when some use the gang mentality of suggesting no one's interested in Foxy's posts. That the membership of A2K is slanted a little left doesn't justify that type of strategy. Keep your chin up.

I assure you Gel; You are the only person here who couldn't see that for yourself. I'm tired of your idiotic game. Good day.

0 Replies

British people intent on proving Tony Blair is a liar:

The A4 War: What have the Attorney General and the Prime Minister got to hide?
Was the paper used by Tony Blair to justify war a legal 'view', a legal 'opinion' or a definitive 'statement'? By Raymond Whitaker
13 March 2005

The Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, became increasingly isolated this weekend as the row over his secret legal advice on the Iraq war drags the Government into a mire of denials and conflicting statements, intensifying the pressure for his advice to be revealed.

The Cabinet Secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull, added to the confusion last week when he said a 337-word, nine-paragraph document from Lord Goldsmith on the eve of the war was the "definitive statement" of his views. "There is no other version." This prompted newspapers to report that Britain had gone to war on the basis of a "single page of A4".

But in response, the Attorney General's office pointed to a meeting he had attended the previous month with senior Downing Street officials, including Jonathan Powell, Tony Blair's chief of staff, and Sir David Manning, the Prime Minister's foreign policy adviser. Lord Goldsmith told them his view of the legal position, and put it in writing on 7 March 2003.

The document was longer than the "definitive statement" issued 10 days later. In 13 pages it is understood to conclude that Britain could go to war without a new UN Security Council resolution, but admits that a court might not be convinced that the war was legal. Only a few people at the top of the Government have seen this document. When the Cabinet met on 17 March 2003, two days before the first bombs fell on Baghdad, all it saw was the nine-paragraph statement, shorn of all caveats, which was also issued on the same day as a parliamentary answer.

Why was this later statement produced? Because senior military officers, led by the Chief of Staff, Sir Michael Boyce, demanded an assurance that their troops would not find themselves charged with war crimes if Iraq was invaded. The "single page of A4" also helped to convince waverers like Clare Short, then a cabinet member, and Labour backbenchers to vote for war. But it has led the Government, and Lord Goldsmith, into a tangle of their own making.

The Attorney General has denied being "leaned on" to change his view, and he has been inconsistent on the nine-paragraph statement, calling it a "summary" of his advice and later denying that it was a summary (see box). In response to the Prime Minister describing it as his "opinion" - a term that has a precise technical meaning for lawyers - Lord Goldsmith has insisted it was merely his "view". Yet the motion Mr Blair put to the Commons on 18 March 2003 calling for war also referred to the Attorney General's "opinion", and Lord Goldsmith did not demur.

Sir Andrew, in evidence to the Commons Public Affairs Committee, appeared to try to lay the matter to rest. "There is not a longer version of that advice," he said. "There is no other version. This is the definitive statement of his views. In his view it was sufficient for his colleagues to be assured that he thought there was a legal basis for military action. It does not purport to be a summary of his advice. It was the definitive advice that he had reached."

No sooner had the Cabinet Secretary done so, Lord Goldsmith drew attention to his earlier written statement.

Why not release the 13-page document and end the controversy? Some in official circles say it is far from explosive. But the Government is clinging to the principle that its legal advice should remain confidential, despite precedents for publishing such advice. It has refused a request under the Freedom of Information Act, a decision that is to be reviewed by the Information Commissioner.

"The real reason for keeping it secret is that it would show how the later document was 'sexed up', with all caveats removed - just like the row over the dossier on Iraq's weapons," said a legal authority.

The question of WMD was crucial to Lord Goldsmith: he was assured by the Prime Minister that Iraq was still producing illegal weapons before he announced that it was "plain" that Iraq was in material breach of UN resolutions.

"Does the opinion stand up if the facts on which it was based have fallen down?" asked Robin Cook, who resigned from the Cabinet just before the war. "How on earth can the Government go on resisting the reasonable call for the Attorney General's full advice to be published?"

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrats' foreign affairs spokesman, said there were two "material considerations" in the minds of those who voted for war on Iraq: "First, that the threat from weapons of mass destruction was so acute that only military action would do; and second, that the opinion of the Attorney General was that it was lawful to do so. The motion which the House passed makes that clear beyond any doubt.

"But what we now know is that the claims about WMD were unfounded, and that there is an apparent inconsistency between the written opinion of the Attorney General and the written answer which he gave in the House of Lords on the first day of the debate.

"Those who voted in favour must now be wondering if they did so on the basis of unreliable information."

THE PAPER TRAIL

7 MARCH 2003

Following a meeting with Jonathan Powell, Blair's chief of staff, and Sir David Manning, foreign policy adviser, Lord Goldsmith produces a 13-page document weighing legal arguments, complete with caveats

13-17 MARCH 2003

A nine-paragraph document is drawn up to persuade Sir Michael Boyce, the Army's chief of staff, that British troops would not be charged with war crimes in the event of an attack

17 MARCH 2003

The Prime Minister presents the nine-paragraph document 'on one side of an A4 page' to a cabinet meeting to convince waverers, including Clare Short, of the justification for an attack on Iraq. The document is made public

19 MARCH 2003

Two days after the A4 document is produced in Cabinet and used by Tony Blair in the House of Commons, the shock and awe campaign begins with the bombing of Baghdad

WHAT THEY SAID

The Attorney General came to the Cabinet [on 17 March 2003] and gave his opinion in detail, and was there able to answer any queries.

Tony Blair, parliamentary answer, 9 March 2005

I said this was odd, coming so late. Everyone said: 'Oh Clare, be quiet.' No one would allow any discussion.

Clare Short, 27 February 2005, recalling the same Cabinet meeting

This statement was a summary of my view of the legal position, rather than a detailed consideration... The statement was consistent with my detailed legal advice.

Lord Goldsmith, parliamentary answer, 6 November 2003

I set out... my own genuinely held, independent view that military action was lawful under the existing [UN] Security Council resolutions. [It] did not purport to be a summary of my confidential legal advice to government.

Lord Goldsmith, parliamentary answer, 25 February 2005
14 March 2005 17:49

Search this site:

Printable Story

Independent Portfolio.
Click here to find out more.

0 Replies

Remind me not to bother concerning myself with your feelings again in the future, Revel. That you would assist Gel in twisting a gesture of kindness into something else proves you unworthy of the empathy I offered in the first place. Rolling Eyes

Bye bye now.

0 Replies

What are you trying to do, break her heart? You have no idea how much she, or I, value your opine.
You sir are a cad .and not a gentleman!

0 Replies

OB's quote, "Remind me not to bother concerning myself with your feelings again in the future, Revel. That you would assist Gel in twisting a gesture of kindness into something else proves you unworthy of the empathy I offered in the first place. Bye bye now." ROFLMAO

0 Replies

Good post McTag

Much as I admire the man, SOMEONE has to pay the political price for taking us into an illegal war, an that person should be Antony Charles Lynton Blair. But he's not going to. He'll get away with it.

Apparantly on 'Womans Hour' Blair refused to apologise for Iraq, even when one woman said he would get her vote if he did. Blair genuinely thinks he did the right thing. He sees a world where might is right, where America has the biggest stick and where its our job to help them wield it.

0 Replies

ps seems like there is a much more serious war going on here on a2k. Come on guys and gals, you know sticks and stones etc...

0 Replies

What would make any given war "legal," as opposed to "illegal"?

0 Replies

Ge, Revel, ignore him. Otherwise this will go on forever.

Tico, Germany's war in WW2 was illegal; ours in WW2 was legal. Why?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Yes ... "why" you think that is the question I'd like you to answer.

0 Replies

I'm asking YOU why. You know the answer.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Look at the question I asked again, Cyclops, then try again. I didn't ask for examples of wars you felt were illegal .. I asked for a response that indicated what would make a war "legal" vs. "illegal." If you don't have anything to contribute, please don't.

0 Replies

why do I feel like I got caught playing with myself ... Smile

0 Replies

Blair has always said his government will act within UK and international law. So for it to be legal, the UN would have to give authorisation for the use of force, and the Attorney General would then make reference to that in his legal opinion to govt. that the war was legal under UK law.

The joke is the Attorney General while "maintaining" his independence as a lawyer is also a member of the government. That the government protests that it can't disclose confidential information between lawyer and client because that would be a breach of trust (presumably between govt and another bit of govt), despite the fact that the govt itself has published a summary of that confidential information it received from itself. That there was nearly a mutiny in the chief of the defense staff who wouldn't go to war unless they given absolute assurance they wouldn't be liable to prosecution. [note they were not bothered about killing thousands of people unnecessarily, just to make sure they weren't going to end up in jail]. And that the sole legal basis for Britain going to war was to disarm Iraq of wmd, which Iraq didn't have. Apart from that and the fact that the whole business has been comprehensively ****ed up under American leadership, there is no problem with Iraq.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Dear Hawks, The majority of people now agree that the war isn't going well, and that we shouldn't even be there in the first place.
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Too much formatting to paste here. But go see for yourself; you're in the minority now. It will have ramifications politically... Cycloptichorn

reformatting in the following quote was done by me

Quote:

http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm
Associated Press/Ipsos poll conducted by Ipsos-Public Affairs. March 7-9, 2005. N=1,001 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"When it comes to handling the situation in Iraq, do you approve or disapprove or have mixed feelings about the way George W. Bush is handling that issue?"

|Approve |Disapprove |Mixed Feelings |Unsure
|% |% |% |%
3/7-9/05 |45 |53 |2 |-
2/7-9/05 |42 |57 |1 |-
1/3-5/05 |44 |54 |2 |-
...
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CNN/USA Today/Gallup Poll. Feb. 25-27, 2005. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"

|Approve |Disapprove |Unsure
|% |% |%
2/25-27/05 |45 |53 |2
2/4-6/05 |50 |48 |2
1/7-9/05 |42 |56 |2
...
"In view of the developments since we first sent our troops to Iraq, do you think the United States made a mistake in sending troops to Iraq, or not?"

|Made a Mistake |Did Not Make a Mistake |Unsure
|% |% |%
2/25-27/05 |47 |51 |2
2/4-6/05 |45 |55 |-
1/14-16/05 |52 |47 |1
1/7-9/05 |50 |48 |2

"Who do you think is currently winning the war in Iraq: the U.S. and its allies, the insurgents in Iraq, or neither side?"

|U.S. |Insurgents |Neither |Unsure
|% |% |% |%
2/25-27/05 |43 |7 |48 |2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey conducted by Princeton Survey Research Associates International. Feb. 16-21, 2005. N=1,502 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling the situation in Iraq?"
|Approve |Disapprove |Unsure
|% |% |%
2/16-21/05 |40 |53 |7
1/5-9/05 |45 |50 |5

"Do you think the U.S. made the right decision or the wrong decision in using military force against Iraq?"

|Right Decision |Wrong Decision |Unsure
|% |% |%
Among ALL adults:

2/16-21/05 |47 |47 |6
1/5-9/05 |51 |44 |5

"How well is the U.S. military effort in Iraq going . . . ?"

|Very Well |Fairly Well |Not Too Well |Not At All Well |Unsure
|% |% |% |% |%
2/16-21/05 |14 |40 |25 |17 |4
1/5-9/05 |9 |39 |29 |20 |3

"Do you think the U.S. should keep military troops in Iraq until the situation has stabilized, or do you think the U.S. should bring its troops home as soon as possible?"

|Keep Troops |Bring Home |Unsure
|% |% |%
2/16-21/05 |55 |42 |3
1/5-9/05 |54 |41 |5

"Do you think George W. Bush has a clear plan for bringing the situation in Iraq to a successful conclusion, or don't you think so?"

|Has a Clear Plan |Doesn't Have a Clear Plan |Unsure
|% |% |%
2/16-21/05 |32 |61 |7

"Do you think the war in Iraq has helped the war on terrorism, or has it hurt the war on terrorism?"

|Helped |Hurt |No Effect (vol.) |Unsure
|% |% |% |%
2/16-21/05 |44 |41 |7 |8

"All in all, do you think the recent elections in Iraq will lead to a MORE stable situation, a LESS stable situation, or will the situation in Iraq not change much?"

|More Stable |Less Stable |Same |Unsure
% % % %
2/16-21/05 |47 |7 |40 |6

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll conducted by the polling organizations of Peter Hart (D) and Bill McInturff (R). Feb. 10-14, 2005. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"When it comes to the war in Iraq, do you think that removing Saddam Hussein from power was or was not worth the number of U.S. military casualties and the financial cost of the war?"

|Worth It |Not Worth It |Depends (vol.) |Unsure
|% |% |% |%
Among ALL adults:

2/10-14/05 |44 |49 |3 |4
1/13-17/05 |40 |52 |3 |5

"Do you think that the war in Iraq is generally over, with most of the challenges behind us, or do you think that most of the challenges in Iraq remain ahead?"

|Most Challenges Behind |Most Challenges Ahead |Unsure
% % %
2/10-14/05 |23 |73 |4

"Do you think that the recent elections in Iraq are an indication that President Bush's policy in dealing with Iraq is working, or do you NOT think that the elections are an indication that President Bush's policy in dealing with Iraq is working?"

|Indicates Policy Working |Does Not Indicate Policy Is Working |Depends/Some of Both (vol.) |Unsure
|% |% |% |%
2/10-14/05 |53 |37 |5 |5

"Do you think that the United States should maintain its current troop level in Iraq to help secure peace and stability, or should the United States now reduce its number of troops since the election has been held?"

|Maintain Level |Reduce Level |Depends/Some of Both (vol.) |Unsure
|% |% |% |%
2/10-14/05 |41 |50 |4 |5

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Harris Poll. Feb. 8-13, 2005. N=1,012 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"Do you favor keeping a large number of U.S. troops in Iraq until there is a stable government there OR bringing most of our troops home in the next year?"

|Wait for Stable Govt. |Bring Home In Next Year |Unsure
|% |% |%
2/8-13/05 |39 |59 |1

"Do you think the invasion of Iraq strengthened or weakened the war on terrorism?"

|Strengthened |Weakened |Unsure
|% |% |%
2/8-13/05 |46 |48 |6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gallup Poll. Feb. 7-10, 2005. N=1,008 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.

"All in all, do you think it was worth going to war in Iraq, or not?"

|Worth Going To War |Not Worth Going To War |No Opinion
|% |% |%
2/7-10/05 |48 |50 |2
1/3-5/05 |46 |52 |2
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Dear Hawks, the majority of people now agree that the war isn't going well, and that we shouldn't even be there in the first place.

Yeah, right! Question

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

Look at the question I asked again, Cyclops, then try again. I didn't ask for examples of wars you felt were illegal .. I asked for a response that indicated what would make a war "legal" vs. "illegal." If you don't have anything to contribute, please don't.

Well, what would make a war "legal" vs. "illegal?"

That was, is and in all probability, will continue to be your question. It's an excellent question in the face of the Irratios allegation that the US invasion of Iraq is illegal.

However, It is part of the Irratios invidious liturgy to avoid answering one's questions by responding with questions, when their truthful answer to one's questions will reveal the irrationality in their thinking (i.e., will reveal they're acting irrationally). O'Bill has also encountered this same part of the Irratios invidious liturgy.

I think I'll try to answer your question without resort to a question instead of an answer.

the boldface emphasis is mine

Quote:

Article VI
...
This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

The US has not entered into any treaty or passed any law requiring the US to obtain the approval of the UN, or of any nation or nations to defend itself by invading those nations containing residents who have publically declared war against Americans.

Therefore, our invasion of Iraq is not against the law (i.e., not illegal).

However, if in future the US were to enter into any treaty or to pass any law requiring the US to obtain the approval of the UN, or of any nation or nations to defend itself by invading those nations containing residents who have publically declared war against Americans, then a subsequent invasion of another country by the US attempting to defend itself by invading those nations containing residents who have publically declared war against Americans would be illegal.

0 Replies

This says nothing at all about wether it was legal or illegal in the UK.

0 Replies

Perhaps you could answer for the UK then Walter?

0 Replies

I'm not the UK's spokesperson :wink:

It's debated in the UK, wether Blair broke ministerial rules over legal advice on the Iraq war or not.

So, besides others, the UK bar group is investigating the Iraq war advice.

THE US, THE UN AND THE IRAQIS THEMSELVES, V. 7.0

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know