Goldsmith’s advice leaked
An alleged leaked copy of the Attorney General’s initial advice on the legality of the US-led Iraq conflict presented a “reasonable” case for attacking Iraq, it has been revealed.
But Lord Goldsmith added crucial caveats, telling Tony Blair that a court was a liberty to take a contrary view and rule a further UN resolution was necessary.
The document (penned March 7 2003) would appear to be at odds with the summary of his opinion given to MPs 10 days’ later.
In the document, he warned British troops may face prosecution in the International Criminal Court.
He added the “safest legal course” would be to secure a second Security Council resolution authorising war.
But he added a reasonable case could be made that Resolution 1441 could revive the authorisation in 678 “without a further resolution”.
The peer told Mr Blair “strong factual grounds” had to be shown that Iraq was in material breach of UN resolutions.
Last night, Conservative leader Michael Howard demanded an explanation as to why the peer appeared to change his mind.
And Dominic Grieve, the Shadow Attorney General, accused the premier of perpetrating a “great deception” on the legality of the Iraq war.
“But Mr Blair has said that the Attorney General’s advice to the Cabinet on 17 March was ‘very clear’ that the war was legal, and that the Attorney General had not changed his mind. It is obvious that he did.
“So what the public must now have an answer to is this: what, or who, changed the Attorney General’s mind?”
The Liberal Democrats are demanding a full public inquiry into the rationale for war.
Lib Dem leader, Charles Kennedy, said: “We now urgently require a full public statement from the Prime Minister and the Attorney General as to the events that took place over the 10 days in question.
“The Prime Minister has always said the British people must make the final judgment on this matter and in the light of this revelation millions certainly will on May 5.”
But, the Attorney General said that far from the leak backing up Government’s critics, it showed he had taken full account of all the arguments.
Lord Goldsmith said: “The document, published by Channel 4 News, so far from standing up the case of the Government’s critics, stands up the case the Government has been making all along.
“Contrary to the allegations that have persistently been made, it does not say the war was unlawful but confirms the conclusion I reached was that a sufficient basis for the use of force was established without a second resolution.”
He added: “The document also makes it clear that the legal analysis might be altered by the course of events over the next week or so. Between 7th March and 17th March 2003, I asked for and received confirmation of the breach of UN Security Council Resolutions.
“It was also necessary to continue my deliberations as the military and civil service needed me to express a clear and simple view whether military action would be lawful or not. The answer to the question was it lawful, yes or no, was, in my judgement, yes. And I said so to Government, to the military, to Cabinet and publicly.”
