"Oelewapper" wrote in message
...

GREENPEACE.ORG.UK STATEMENT ON IRAQ WHISTLE-BLOWER CASE:
Government faces further headache over legal case for Iraq war

Blix: Iraq war was illegal

Blair's defence is bogus, says the former UN weapons inspector

The former chief UN weapons inspector Hans Blix has declared that the war in
Iraq was illegal, dealing another devastating blow to Tony Blair.

Mr Blix, speaking to The Independent, said the Attorney General's legal
advice to the Government on the eve of war, giving cover for military action
by the US and Britain, had no lawful justification. He said it would have
required a second United Nations resolution explicitly authorising the use
of force for the invasion of Iraq last March to have been legal.

His intervention goes to the heart of the current controversy over Lord
Goldsmith's advice, and comes as the Prime Minister begins his fightback
with a speech on Iraq today.

An unrepentant Mr Blair will refuse to apologise for the war in Iraq,
insisting the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein in power. He
will point to the wider benefits of the Iraq conflict, citing Libya's
decision to give up its weapons of mass destruction, but warn that the world
cannot turn a blind eye to the continuing threat from WMD.

But, in an exclusive interview, Mr Blix said: "I don't buy the argument the
war was legalised by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."

And it appeared yesterday that the Government shared that view until the eve
of war, when it received the Lord Goldsmith's final advice.

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had
assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate
to authorise military action.

Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before
the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorised the use of force
because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the
ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of
the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not
with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the
ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council
that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."

He said to challenge that interpretation would set a dangerous precedent.
"Any individual member could take a view - the Russians could take one view,
the Chinese could take another, they could be at war with each other,
theoretically," Mr Blix said.

The Attorney General's opinion has come under fresh scrutiny since the
collapse of the trial against the GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun last
week, prompting calls for his full advice to be made public.

Mr Blix, who is an international lawyer by training, said: "I would suspect
there is a more sceptical view than those two A4 pages," in a reference to
Clare Short's contemptuous description of the 358-word summary.

It emerged on Wednesday that a Foreign Office memo, sent to the Foreign
Affairs Select Committee on the same day that Lord Goldsmith's summary was
published, made clear that there was no "automaticity" in resolution 1441 to
justify war.

Asked whether, in his view, a second resolution authorising force should
have been adopted, Mr Blix replied: "Oh yes."

In the interview, ahead of the publication next week of his book Disarming
Iraq: The search for weapons of mass destruction, Mr Blix dismissed the
suggestion that Mr Blair should resign or apologise over the failure to find
any WMD in Iraq.

But he suggested that the Prime Minister may have been fatally wounded by
his loss of credibility, and that voters would deliver their verdict. "Some
people say Bush and Blair should be put before a tribunal and I say that you
have the punishment in the political field here," he said. "Their credibilit
y has been affected by this: Bush too lost some credibility."

He repeated accusations the US and British governments were "hyped"
intelligence and lacking critical thinking. "They used exclamation marks
instead of question marks."

"I have some understanding for that. Politicians have to simplify to
explain, they also have to act in this world before they have 100 per cent
evidence. But I think they went further."

"But I never said they had acted in bad faith," he added. "Perhaps it was
worse that they acted out of good faith."

The threat allegedly posed by Saddam's WMD was the prime reason cited by the
British government for going to war. But not a single item of banned
weaponry has been found in the 11 months that have followed the declared end
of hostilities.

Mr Blair will argue that similar decisive action will need to be taken in
future to combat the threat of rogue states and terrorists obtaining WMD.

By Anne Penketh in Stockholm and Andrew Grice
The Independent - 05 March 2004

---

Government thought UN mandate was needed for Iraq war

Until the eve of war on Iraq, the Government had assumed it needed a
specific United Nations mandate to authorise military action, Sir Andrew
Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed yesterday.

Britain's most senior civil servant admitted there was no "plan B" beyond a
fresh UN resolution, and Downing Street changed its stance only when it
became clear no diplomatic agreement was likely.

Sir Andrew said Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney General, was asked to decide
whether an invasion was "still legal" without a further UN mandate. He also
raised the possibility that the Attorney General's full legal advice may yet
be passed to Parliament's watchdog.

Sir Andrew, appearing before the Commons Public Administration Select
Committee, insisted it was his idea to send a letter to Clare Short warning
of possible prosecution for revealing Government secrets.

He also rejected charges that he had been "the invisible man" in Downing
Street's handling of Dr David Kelly, but conceded that the Government could
learn lessons from criticism of its controversial dossier on Iraq's weapons
of mass destruction. In a two-and-half hour evidence session, Sir Andrew
became the first Whitehall official to admit Tony Blair was advised weeks
before the war that he needed a further UN resolution for legal authority.

"This was a moving situation because for a long time we were thinking this
might have been authorised by a specific UN resolution, in a way because it
would have been clear cut," he told MPs. "We worked hard to get it and
worked on the assumption that we probably would. I'm not aware of a plan B.
It only became apparent when that resolution was not forthcoming that advice
was needed."

Mr Blair has said that it was only on 10 March, when President Jacques
Chirac said he may veto a new UN resolution, that it was clear no further
progress could be made.

Sir Andrew's remarks backed claims in the New Statesman magazine yesterday
that Lord Goldsmith had advised Mr Blair he would prefer a further UN
mandate even after UN resolution 1441 was passed in November 2002.

Resolution 1441 gave Saddam Hussein a last chance to comply with disarmament
obligations but made clear that no further action could be taken without the
approval of the UN. A further resolution would make Britain's position
"absolutely watertight".

Sir Andrew denied he had been "worried" about the lack of legal cover, but
conceded that he and Admiral Boyce, the Chief of Defence Staff (CDS),
depended on legal cover for their staff. "I was aware of the fact that I on
behalf of the Civil Service and the CDS on behalf of the Armed Forces needed
the assurance that what was being done was legal," he said.

He revealed that assurance of the war's legality came only when the Attorney
General gave a summary of his advice on 17 March, three days before the
UK-US invasion began.

Sir Andrew said there were "discussions" going on with Anne Abraham, the
Parliamentary Ombudsman, about whether Lord Goldsmith's opinion could be
released.

By Paul Waugh, Deputy Political Editor
The Independent - 05 March 2004