From the actual interview:
In his most detailed explanation yet of why he demanded an unequivocal assurance from lawyers that the war was legal, he said: 'I wanted to make sure that we had this anchor which has been signed by the government law officer ...
'It may not stop us from being charged, but, by God, it would make sure other people were brought into the frame as well.'
...
Boyce has consistently said he believed the war was legal and morally justified. But, asked whether the government had provided him with the legal cover necessary to avoid prosecution for war crimes, he replied: 'No.'
He added: 'I think I have done as best as I can do. I have always been troubled by the ICC. Although I was reassured ... when (discussions over signing up to the ICC were) going through Whitehall about five years ago, I was patted on the head and told: "Don't worry, on the day it will be fine." I don't have 100 per cent confidence in that.'
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/politics/story/0,6903,1474276,00.htmlTo me it looks more like the adminral complaining that the legal side hadn't been handled to his satisfaction, rather than "slams Blair for going to war".
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(394 posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
