Goldsmith told Blair Iraq was illegal on eve of war

Tony Blair was told by the government's most senior law officer in a confidential minute less than two weeks before the war that British participation in the American-led invasion of Iraq could be declared illegal.

by: Richard Norton-Taylor on: 27th April, 05 Guardian

Full text: summary of attorney general's legal advice on March 7 2003
SHOCKIN AWEFUL

26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides. (On the one hand this and on the other hand that)A key question is whether there is in truth a need for an assessment of whether Iraq's conduct constitutes a failure to take the final opportunity or has constituted a failure fully to cooperate within the meaning of OP4 such that the basis of the ceasefire is destroyed. If an assessment is needed of that situation, it would be for the Council to make it. A narrow textual reading of the resolution suggests that sort of assessment is not needed, because the Council has predetermined the issue. Public statements, on the other hand, say otherwise.
27. In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. [...] The key point is that it should establish that the Council has concluded that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been tabled.
28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington (i.e I had my arm twsited up my back) , I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.
29. However, (On the one hand this and on the other hand that) the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.
30. In reaching my conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that on a number of previous occasions, including in relation to Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 and Kosovo in 1999, UK forces have participated in military action on the basis of advice from my predecessors that the legality of the action under international law was no more than reasonably arguable. But a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with the view. I judge that, having regard to the arguments on both sides, (On the one hand this and on the other hand that)and considering the resolution as a whole in the light of the statements made on adoption and subsequently, a court might well conclude that OPs 4 and 12 do require a further Council decision in order to revive the authorisation in resolution 678. But equally(On the one hand this and on the other hand that) I consider that the counter view can be reasonably maintained. However, it must be recognised that on previous occasions when military action was taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree of public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing as great as it is today.
31. The analysis set out above applies whether a second resolution fails to be adopted because of a lack of votes or because it is vetoed. As I have said before, I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the Security Council by the UN Charter. So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. (On the one hand this and on the other hand that) In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise the French veto as "unreasonable". The legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or so, eg the discussions on the draft second resolution. If we fail to achieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time.
    

So there you have it, ... even after all the equivication and legalese, there really was no legal case for invasion and the implication that the bombing of Serbia into the Stone Age from 20,000 feet and the Iraqi "Desert Fox" BLITZKREIG were also illegal -

......and this is what Jack Straw, Bush's Poodle signed up to - In your name. Do you wonder he looks ill - no wonder Tony Blair is keeping away from Blackburn !!!!!!

USAF, US Navy and Marine , the British RAF, and submarine launched Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched against military targets in Iraq from December 16 to 19, 1998. The official explanation for this sustained and relentless 4 day attack was that it was retaliation for Iraq's refusal to allow the inspection of sites as stated in the United Nations Security Council Resolution 687, agreed upon at the end of the Persian Gulf War. The name of this operation was Desert Fox.

The strikes ordered by President Clinton (For which Parliamentary approval was not asked and not given) on December 16th were divided into two waves. The first wave included up to 200 cruise missiles launched from cruisers and other ships in the Gulf region. A second wave of F/A-18 Hornets and F-14 Super Tomcats attacked the headquarters of Iraqi Security Police, one of the eight presidential palaces of Saddam Hussein, the Iraqi Intelligence Headquarters, and other targets around Iraq.

On December 17, Air-Launched Cruise Missiles from B-52s operating out of Diego Garcia were used each contained a 2,000 lbs warhead, unlike the Tomahawk missiles fired from ships, which had 1,000 lbs warheads. 100 ALCMs were fired (@ $1 Mn a pop) on the second night. British aircraft also came into play this evening, launching air strikes against Iraq from bases in Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. MPs from all the major British political parties expressed their support for the air strikes when Tony Blair addressed them, as the Tornadoes were returning from their first strike mission.

On December 19 (1st day of the Moslem Holy month of Ramadan). Nonetheless, air strikes continued on this fourth day, with attacks being carried out on new targets and secondary strikes being launched on targets that were not completely destroyed in earlier waves of sorties. At the end of the day, the US announced they were ceasing operations in the region, after approximately 600 sorties and 400 cruise missile attacks.