BLAIR ASKS LORD GOLDSMITH TO SUPPRESS DOUBTS OF IRAQ WAR

*

 

ATTORNEY GENERAL LORD GOLDSMITH ASKED BY BLAIR TO SUPPRESS DOUBTS ABOUT IRAQI WAR

 

Well it had to surface sometime and the New Statesman magazine on Thursday the 18^th of November 2004 has blown the whistle on the underhand manner of the whole affair, which was outlined in today’s Daily Mail by David Hughes their Political Editor.

 

*

 

The New Statesman magazine alleged that the Government’s most senior law officer believed an Invasion to be illegal under International Law, but changed that position under the personal pressure of the Prime Minister.

The allegation could hardly be more serious, raising questions about the Integrity of the Attorney General.

 

It echoes reports earlier this year that his initial advice had been ‘Ambiguous’ and that military chiefs had demanded clearer legal guidelines before committing their troops to battle.

 

Under the headline: -’The Law Chief who bowed to Blair’

 

The New Statesman claims Lord Goldsmith was ‘leaned on’ by Mr Blair to ‘change his mind’ about the legality of war.

 

It alleges that Mr Blair asked him to stay silent on the legality of invading IRAQ until he could ‘guarantee his advice was helpful in justifying the war,

 

The claims are made by the magazine’s political editor John Kampfner in an analysis of Lord Goldsmith’s role in the run-up to war based on extensive insider briefing.

In a statement yesterday, [Lord Goldsmith] he did not deny he had changed his advice. But he insisted he was ‘never leaned on to give a particular view, and that it was his ‘genuine and independent view’ that action was lawful.

 

The New Statesman article says that between September 2002 and February 2003-the eve of the Invasion-Lord Goldsmith let it be known he could not sanction military action without specific UN approval.

 

Mr Blair was ‘fully aware of the Attorney General’s reservations, and therefore did not ask him to declare his position formally. The Premier sent him to Washington in late January 2003 to be briefed by top Whitehouse legal advisers.

 

‘After the trip, Goldsmith agreed to produce the legal advice Blair sought’ the magazine claims.

 

In a 13-page paper given to the Prime Minister on March 7-2003 he set out the legal status of the various UN resolutions but stopped short of giving a definite view on the legality of an Invasion. With time fast running out, Mr Blair asked him to produce something more compelling, [Haven’t we come across something like this in the past -surely not?]

 

Mr Kampfner says that on March 17, in a written Parliamentary answer, Lord Goldsmith obliged with a ‘partial, tendentious account of that advice, shorn of various caveats and qualifications’.

 

He added: A qualified document had become a document of advocacy; Sexing up had become a habit.

 

Lord Goldsmith’s office issued a statement in response to the New Statesman article, which carefully side steps the question of whether he changed his advice.

 

‘The Attorney General was never leaned on to give a particular view. As he confirmed in a statement on July 14. It was his genuine and independent view that action was lawful under existing Security Council resolutions.

 

He would not offer a view of his own.’

11/04

 

* * *

[Fonts altered-bolding used-comments in brackets]

 

 

*

 

www.eutruth.org.uk

*

www.thewestminsternews.co.uk

*

 

www.speakout.co.uk

*

 

Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU

www.telegraph.co.uk.blogs

*

 

GORDON BROWN WANTS TRUST-BUT WHY WON'T HE TRUST YOU?

HELL ON EARTH IN IRAQ

*

 

*67% want powers back from EU-ICM poll-June 21-2007-95% of British people want a REFERENDUM

 

*

 

VOTE

 -2007

 

TO LEAVE THE EUROPEAN UNION

WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE

TO SET YOU

 FREE

 

THE

UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY

www.ukip.org

 

TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER

BUT

SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES.

*

 

ONLY

PRO-PORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE

*

Home Rule for Scotland

WHY NOT

HOME RULE for ENGLAND

[EACH WORD HAS A DIFFERENT BULLETIN]

 

*

MAY/07

 

[All underlined words have a separate bulletin

THE QUESTION THAT THE VOTER MUST ANSWER

 

‘DO YOU WISH TO BE GOVERNED BY YOUR OWN PEOPLE, LAW AND CUSTOM OR BY THE CORRUPT ,EXPENSIVE UNACCOUNTABLE AND ALIEN BUSYBODY BRUSSELS’

 

-SIMPLE IS IT NOT?