Guardian: How the UK was persuaded that the Iraq invasion was legal

This MUST-READ article from the Guardian (UK) describes the meetings in which Tony Blair’s Attorney General (Lord Goldsmith) was convinced by five powerful lawyers in the Bush administration that the Iraq invasion was legal. As international lawyer Philippe Sands QC, who wrote the book Lawless World, put it, '”How delightful that a Labour government should seek assistance from US lawyers so closely associated with neo-con efforts to destroy the international legal order.”

These meetings took place in February 2003, the same month as Colin Powell’s fraudulent speech before the UN. The following month, the US invaded Iraq. (For a detailed long-term timeline of the events around the Iraq invasion, see the site “This Far and No Further,” http://www.iraqtimeline.com .)

The Guardian article includes interviews with some of the participants in these crucial meetings.



This article really got me. The Iraq invasion was excused by LAWYERS and the UK Attorney General was overwhelmed in a series of "gruelling" meetings with five powerful lawyers in the Bush Administration in Feb 2003. He came away saying he was convinced of the legality of the invasion, and this appears to have been the turning point for the UK government's decision to join in the war. And that in turn meant that the Bush Administration could claim a "coalition of the willing" supported their just goals in protecting the world from Saddam Hussein.

It all came down to lawyers. Just like with the CIA's "extraordinary renditions" (international kidnappings and subsequent torture or "disappearance") everything was vetted carefully, in bloodless, neatly written documents, by lawyers who go home at the end of the day to a good dinner and a comfortable night's sleep. (For a must-read article by respected British investigative journalist Stephen Grey on the CIA's "extraordinary rendition" activities, see http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=1740193.)

No wonder Bush wanted Gonzales' confirmation so badly, he's been in the middle of EVERYTHING, excusing the worst neocon crimes in neat legal terms.

Alberto Gonzales, Condaleeza Rice, and of course John Bolton were all involved in the illegal operation. Basically from day one.

... a legal sophistry which can be summarized as the US saying, "We're entitled to invade Iraq because we say that the evidence of his disarmament is not convincing enough for us, so we, therefore, conclude he has not disarmed, and therefore, should be invaded." The sophistry broadens further when they assert that a joint SC resolution can be carried out without further joint consultation because one party to the prior joint consultation believes the evidence of disarmament is not compelling, even though others in that joint body might object on the basis of the evidence.

Well, the evidence available before the war didn't say that, at all. The general opinion of virtually all in the Security Council, and of those familiar with the work of UNSCOM and UNMOVIC and IAEA concluded that he had virtually disarmed the country. And, the evidence after the war was that, in fact, he had.

What it boils down to is this: had it been a lead-pipe cinch that Hussein had evaded the prior resolutions and maintained weapons programs, they could have gotten a majority vote in the Security Council in very short order, and generated much more world cooperation for the venture. They did not seek a second resolution, because they knew it was not possible, based on the facts. So, their legal strategy centered around finding a way to avoid a second referendum on invasion.

Hope, in the context of this leaked memo, and its implications, that everyone remembers that the US intercepted and removed two-thirds of the documents supplied by the Iraqi government on its disarmament program before delivering the remainder to the UN.

Hope that everyone remembers that all the agencies involved in inspections say that Iraq was generally complying.

Hope everyone remembers that these people lied about it all, and then tried to construct a legal framework based on their lies.

This helps to understand why people like Bolton can be described as "blunt" when in fact they are chronic abusers.

See parallel post in LBN http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x1436916

The wording in the article, that he was sent to Washington "to put some steel in his spine," is telling. It wasn't just the neocon lawyers, hitting him one after another in those "gruelling" sessions. Before leaving the UK he must have been subjected to great pressure to comply with the US position, but he was still resisting at that point. But then those top US neocon lawyers, so practiced in excusing crimes with legal sophistry, got him in their sights and he started doubting his own logic and ethical sense. They bullied him into submission, and his decision was solidified when he was praised for it by the people in his own government who were bent on obeying Bush.

I find myself pitying Goldsmith in a way. His moral compass was functioning, but first the people in his own government and then those in the Bush administration focused all their powers of lying and logic-twisting on him. For them, the end they desired justified any means they chose. For him, an ethical sense was there, was initially troubled, and was finally snuffed out by sheer bullying and lies and force of personality as he was confronted by one aggressive, totally confident neocon lawyer after another. These people were fully prepared with a battery of deceptions and twists for any ethical doubts. They knew that what they were doing flouted all law and morality, and they had arguments and falsified documentation ready for people who still might harbor such quaint notions. Such bullies are so very useful to the Bush administration; as Paine points out, it's a major reason why they want Bolton in the UN. They don't want compromise, they want total, permanent domination by any means.

To me this incident is a microcosm of what must happen again and again in the subverting of moral people in the government and elsewhere to the service of the neocons. It is ugly, perverse, and tragic. And in the case of Goldsmith, who was acting in a sense as the legal conscience of the UK in this, it had consequences that are still unfolding.

I don't imagine Goldsmith sleeps very comfortably. But human maggots like Gonzales do.

It gives several important insights into how the neocons can roll over people who really should know better.

(I also believe they use other methods such as blackmail when possible - they'll do anything at all to get what they want. But Goldsmith's story has some special lessons to teach, both in the neocons' methods and also in the prominence of bullying lawyers insisting on untenable legal arguments.)

People, why do we focus on dying popes and runaway brides to the expense of post of this nature?

Join the discussion at http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x3583753

It is far too important, and the implications far too grave, to ignore. Why is it that DU seems to be becoming as apathetic and shallow as the mainstream? Are run-away brides, new popes, Michael Jackson, Terri Schiavo, and American Idol more important than the welfare of our country now -- even here?

We will stop the lies. We will stop the atrocities.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=104&topic_id=3588644&mesg_id=3588644

Peace


www.missionnotaccomplished.us - "We The People" have begun

get a clearer understanding of how the Bush bullies can pressure even ethical people into compliance with their grossly criminal schemes. It also makes it much clearer just how important conscienceless legal bullies like Gonazales and Bolton are to them.