{"id":4218,"date":"2010-07-02T00:29:28","date_gmt":"2010-07-02T04:29:28","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/?p=4218"},"modified":"2010-07-02T02:08:05","modified_gmt":"2010-07-02T06:08:05","slug":"chilcot-doesnt-disappoint","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/07\/02\/chilcot-doesnt-disappoint\/","title":{"rendered":"Chilcot doesn&#8217;t disappoint&#8230;"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<p align=\"justify\">Last winter, I was personally captivated by the <strong><font color=\"#200020\">Chilcot Inquiry<\/font><\/strong> &#8211; the British Hearings delving into the origins of the Iraq War. The different legal roads to our <strong>illegal<\/strong> war in Iraq was of particular interest to me [<strong><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/01\/27\/the-crime-of-aggression\">the crime of aggression&hellip;<\/a><\/strong>]. We know from the Downing Street Memo [July 23, 2002] that the US course was already set for war by that time. The British Prime Minister [Tony Blair] headed for the US to implore the US to act through the UN, meeting with Bush at his Crawford Ranch in September 2002.&nbsp; Blair convinced Bush to approach the UN for authorization, but probably pledged England&#8217;s allegiance no matter what the outcome. Bush agreed, over-riding Cheney&#8217;s advice to go ahead without the UN.   <\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\"> Congress authorized the use of force in Iraq after the Administration&#8217;s media campaign [beginning on September 8th, 2002]:<\/p>\n<table width=\"90%\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" border=\"0\" align=\"center\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"120\" valign=\"top\"><strong><a href=\"http:\/\/thomas.loc.gov\/cgi-bin\/query\/D?c107:1:.\/temp\/%7Ec107YHFlcq::\" target=\"_blank\">October 2, 2002<\/a><\/strong><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">US CONGRESS: AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td align=\"justify\" colspan=\"2\"><em>SUPPORT FOR UNITED STATES DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS.<\/em>  <\/p>\n<div><em>  The Congress of the United States supports the efforts by the President to&#8211;<\/em><\/div>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<div><em>strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq and encourages him in those efforts; and<\/em><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div><em>obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.<\/em><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<div><em>AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES &#8211; The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to&#8211;<\/em><\/div>\n<ul>\n<li>\n<div><em> defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and<\/em><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<div><em>  enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.<\/em><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p>As was their custom, the Bush Administration quickly invalidated the  Authority of the Congress and the call to work through the Authority of  the UN with a <strong>John Bybee<\/strong> Memo from the DoJ\/OLC:              <\/p>\n<table width=\"90%\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" border=\"0\" align=\"center\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"120\" valign=\"top\"><a href=\"http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/olc\/2002\/iraq-opinion-final.pdf\" target=\"_blank\"><strong>October 23, 2002<\/strong><\/a><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">OLC DOJ: AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT  UNDER DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAW TO USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td align=\"justify\" colspan=\"2\"><em>The President possesses  constitutional authority to use military force against Iraq to protect  United States national interests. This independent constitutional  authority is supplemented by congressional authorization in the form of  the Authorization for Use of Military Force Against Iraq Resolution.  Using force against Iraq would be consistent with international law  because it would be authorized by the United Nations Security Council or  would be justified as anticipatory self-defense.<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p align=\"justify\">We went to the UN and got a Resolution [UN 1441] on November 8, 2002 which gave Hussein one more chance to comply with inspections, but did not lay out the consequences. Hussein agreed and inspections resumed.&nbsp; So in negotiating the UN 1441, the bottom line US  position was that there was no further need for UN Security Council  Action. If Saddam was not in compliance, that fact authorized the use of  force. Again, after UN 1441 was adopted, the Administration went further &#8211;  both invalidating the UN resolution and weakening the requirement for  compliance, with <strong>John Yoo<\/strong>&rsquo;s OLC blessing:<\/p>\n<table width=\"90%\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\" border=\"0\" align=\"center\">\n<tr>\n<td width=\"120\" valign=\"top\"><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/olc\/2002\/iraq-unscr-final.pdf\"><strong>November  8, 2002<\/strong><\/a><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">OLC DOJ: EFFECT OF A RECENT UNITED  NATIONS SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION ON THE AUTHORITY OF THE PRESIDENT  UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW TO USE MILITARY FORCE AGAINST IRAQ<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td align=\"justify\" colspan=\"2\"><em>United Nations Security Council  Resolution 1441 does not alter the legal authority, under international  law, granted by existing U.N. Security Council resolutions to use force  against Iraq.<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td align=\"justify\" colspan=\"2\">\n<hr size=\"1\" \/><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td width=\"120\" valign=\"top\"><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.justice.gov\/olc\/2002\/materialbreach.pdf\"><strong>December  7, 2002<\/strong><\/a><\/td>\n<td valign=\"top\" align=\"justify\">OLC DOJ: WHETHER FALSE STATEMENTS OR  OMISSIONS IN IRAQ&rsquo;S WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION DECLARATION WOULD  CONSTITUTE A &ldquo;FURTHER MATERIAL BREACH&rdquo; UNDER U.N. SECURITY COUNCIL  RESOLUTION 1441<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td align=\"justify\" colspan=\"2\"><em>False statements or omissions in  Iraq&rsquo;s weapons of mass destruction declaration would by themselves  constitute a &ldquo;further material breach&rdquo; of United Nations Security  Counsel Resolution 1441.<\/em><\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n<p align=\"justify\">Tony Blair was in a bind, however. He&#8217;d apparently pledged support to Bush no matter what, but back home in the UK, the American notion of &quot;regime change&quot; was not seen as a case for war [Cassus Belli]. So, when America decided to move forward without a second UN resolution authorizing the use of force, whether England would join us came down to an opinion by <strong>Lord Peter Goldsmith<\/strong>, England&#8217;s Attorney General. In the winter Chilcot Hearings, it was clear that he was in a lot of turmoil. He had strongly held that a second UN Resolution would be required, but changed his tune a few days before the invasion after personally visiting Washington. His explanations of why he decided that UN 1441 was sufficient authorization for war were at best forced [<strong><a href=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/2010\/01\/27\/the-crime-of-aggression\">the  crime of aggression&hellip;<\/a><\/strong>]. I was impressed that the British at least struggled with the legality of the invasion, something that didn&#8217;t seem to bother the US government [to our never ending shame]. But the British are less forgiving of their government.   <\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">Now to today. The <a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.iraqinquiry.org.uk\/\"><strong>Chilcot Inquiry web site<\/strong><\/a> has been down all day [torturing 1boringoldman]. But from the British news, apparently there are new declassified documents that fill in the gaps of Lord Goldsmith&#8217;s decision making process, documents that make Tony Blair look increasingly tarnished.   <\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><strong><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/uk\/2010\/jun\/30\/chilcot-inquiry-lord-goldsmith-blair\">Chilcot inquiry:<\/a><\/strong><\/div>\n<div align=\"center\"><strong><a target=\"_blank\" href=\"http:\/\/www.guardian.co.uk\/uk\/2010\/jun\/30\/chilcot-inquiry-lord-goldsmith-blair\">Iraq papers show Lord Goldsmith&#8217;s warning to  Tony Blair<\/a><br \/>         guardian.co.uk<\/strong><br \/>         by Richard  Norton-Taylor<br \/>         30 June 2010<\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">Tony Blair was warned  by his government&#8217;s chief law officer that an invasion of Iraq would be illegal the day before he  privately assured President George Bush he would support US-led  military action, documents released today by the Chilcot inquiry reveal. They  provide an unprecedented insight into how Lord Goldsmith, then the  attorney general, repeatedly warned the prime minister of the potential  consequences of invading Iraq without fresh UN authority &ndash; much to  Blair&#8217;s irritation. Goldsmith changed his view shortly before the  invasion on 20 March 2003&#8230;<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\"><strong><font color=\"#200020\">Documents released today include a  note, marked secret and dated 30 January 2003. &quot;In view of your  meeting with President Bush on Friday,&quot; Goldsmith told Blair, &quot;I thought  you might wish to know where I stand on the question of whether a  further decision of the [UN] security council is legally required in  order to authorise the use of force against Iraq.&quot; Goldsmith  warned Blair that he &quot;remained of the view that the correct legal  interpretation of resolution 1441 [the last security council decision on  Iraq] is that it does not authorise the use of force without a further  determination by the security council&quot;. Goldsmith concluded: &quot;My  view remains that a further [UN] decision is required.&quot; <\/font><\/strong><\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"center\"><img decoding=\"async\" border=\"0\" src=\"http:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/images\/goldsmith1.gif\" \/><\/div>\n<blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">A handwritten  note, believed to be by David Manning, Blair&#8217;s chief foreign policy  adviser, warned: &quot;Clear advice from attorney on need for further  resolution.&quot; Demonstrating his frustration with Goldsmith, Blair  scrawled in the margin : &quot;I just don&#8217;t understand this.&quot; An aide wrote:  &quot;Specifically said we did not need further advice [on] this matter.&quot; <\/div>\n<p align=\"justify\">The  following day, 31 January 2003, Blair flew to Washington for a meeting  with Bush. Manning records the president &ndash; in a minute previously  disclosed &ndash; telling Blair that military action would be taken with or  without a second security council resolution and the bombing would begin  in mid-March 2003. The note records Blair&#8217;s reaction: &quot;The prime  minister said he was solidly with the president.&quot;<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">Last night,  Philippe Sands QC, professor of international law at University College  London, said the note indicated &quot;the full extent of Mr Blair&#8217;s disdain  for the attorney general&quot;. Sands added: &quot;Did Mr Blair tell the US  president he has been advised that he needs a further resolution? He  does not. Did he hesitate? Not at all. The official note records him as  saying that he is &#8216;solidly with the president&#8217;.&quot; He said the new  documents provided a &quot;devastating paper trail that lays bare the fact  that Lord Goldsmith effected a 180-degree change of direction in less  than a month, and that he did so in the total absence of any new facts  or legal considerations.&quot;<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">The documents released today disclosed  that on 19 December 2002, three months before the invasion, Jonathan  Powell, Blair&#8217;s chief of staff, told Goldsmith there was &quot;no question&quot;  of the UK backing US military action against Iraq &quot;without UN support&quot;  in the event of the US becoming &quot;frustrated with the UN and decide to  take military action regardless&quot;.<\/p>\n<p align=\"justify\">On 30 July 2002, Goldsmith  warned Blair that on the question of using force in self-defence, &quot;the  key issue here is whether an attack is imminent. &quot;The development  of WMD [weapons of mass destruction] is not in itself sufficient to  indicate such imminence.&quot; He added that any UK participation in military  action &quot;would engage the United Kingdom&#8217;s responsibility under  international law&quot;.<\/p>\n<div align=\"justify\">On 14 January 2003 in a note handed to Blair,  Goldsmith warned that UN security council 1441 &quot;contains no express  authorisation by the security council for the use of force&quot;. By 7  March, after a trip to Washington, Goldsmith told Blair that a new UN  resolution might after all not be needed, although going to war without  one would risk Britain being indicted before an international court. Ten  days later, on 17 March 2003, Goldsmith published a short note saying  an invasion would be lawful&#8230;<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<div align=\"justify\">This post is just a reminder of where these hearings left off and picked up. I&#8217;m withholding comment until I can see the documents first hand [when the Chilcot Web Site stops torturing me with its timing out]&#8230;<\/div>\n<p align=\"center\"><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" width=\"92\" hspace=\"2\" height=\"70\" border=\"1\" title=\"Katherine Gun\" alt=\"Katherine Gun\" src=\"http:\/\/t1.gstatic.com\/images?q=tbn:N74xUUZHdC81hM:http:\/\/yearofdemocracy.co.uk\/guests\/katharinegun.jpg\" \/><img decoding=\"async\" hspace=\"2\" height=\"70\" border=\"1\" title=\"Elizabeth Wilmshurst\" alt=\"Elizabeth Wilmshurst\" src=\"http:\/\/www.chathamhouse.org.uk\/files\/15395_elizabeth_wilmshurst65x85.jpg\" \/><img decoding=\"async\" hspace=\"2\" height=\"70\" border=\"1\" title=\"Dr. David Kelly\" alt=\"Dr. David Kelly\" src=\"http:\/\/t1.gstatic.com\/images?q=tbn:-nTt4JqtXrXSjM:http:\/\/www.alien-earth.org\/news\/images\/davidkelly.jpg\" \/><img decoding=\"async\" hspace=\"2\" height=\"70\" border=\"1\" title=\"Richard Clarke\" alt=\"Richard Clarke\" src=\"http:\/\/t2.gstatic.com\/images?q=tbn:7g5K3VwHjGF1tM:http:\/\/msnbcmedia3.msn.com\/j\/msnbc\/Components\/Video\/040325\/tdy_nod_clarke_040325.vsmall.jpg\" \/><img decoding=\"async\" hspace=\"2\" height=\"70\" border=\"1\" title=\"Joseph Wilson\" alt=\"Joseph Wilson\" src=\"http:\/\/t0.gstatic.com\/images?q=tbn:PVuMk2OZeICr0M:http:\/\/www.infoimagination.org\/politics\/features\/niger\/wilson.jpg\" \/><img decoding=\"async\" hspace=\"2\" height=\"70\" border=\"1\" title=\"Valerie Plame\" alt=\"Valerie Plame\" src=\"http:\/\/t3.gstatic.com\/images?q=tbn:8MtH3-xykEjKLM:http:\/\/www.antemedius.com\/files\/images\/M1_062309J_story.jpg\" \/><br \/><sup>the heros<\/sup><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Last winter, I was personally captivated by the Chilcot Inquiry &#8211; the British Hearings delving into the origins of the Iraq War. The different legal roads to our illegal war in Iraq was of particular interest to me [the crime of aggression&hellip;]. We know from the Downing Street Memo [July 23, 2002] that the US [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4218","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-politics"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4218","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4218"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4218\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4218"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4218"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/1boringoldman.com\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4218"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}