Blair sbugiardato ancora una volta..

[pietro]

Gran Bretagna. Blair assediato dalla stampa, un rapporto ufficiale definiva illegale la guerra in Iraq



A pochi giorni dalle elezioni del 5 maggio, e con i sondaggi che gli attribuiscono una vittoria certa, il premier laburista Tony Blair si trova a fronteggiare nuove polemiche legate alla guerra in Iraq.

Il 7 marzo 2003, a meno di due settimane dall'ok definitivo all'invasione dell'Iraq, il consigliere legale di Blair gli aveva messo sul tavolo un documento, reso ora pubblico da Channel Four, nel quale sosteneva che le risoluzioni del Consiglio di Sicurezza dell'Onu non bastavano, la guerra dal punto di vista legale era un azzardo: "Resto dell'opinione - scriveva Lord Goldsmith - che la via legale piu' sicura sarebbe di assicurarsi l'adozione di un'altra risoluzione che autorizzi l'uso della forza".

Ma Blair non riuscì a strappare al Consiglio di Sicurezza un'altra risoluzione, né a convoncere Bush a prendere altro tempo. Gran Bretagna in guerra, allora, e anche Goldsmith cambia idea, e presenta al governo una pagina in cui riassume il suo parere: la guerra è legale, non ci sono dubbi. Scatenati i conservatori: è l'ennesima bugia di Blair. Ed ecco allora il premier, ieri sera, su Sky: Goldsmith non ha mai cambiato idea, insiste, e io non ho mentito agli inglesi.

http://www.rainews24.it/Notizia.asp?NewsID=54044

COSA DICEVA IL RAPPORTO DI LORD GOLDSMITH

1. In law, there was a strong argument that it was the job of the United Nations - not Mr Blair - to rule whether Iraq had defied the UN's order to disarm.

Goldsmith set out how it may be judged that it was the function of the UN Security Council, not an individual country such as Britain or America, to decide if Iraq was in 'material breach' of UN Resolution 1441, passed in November 2002 and giving it a 'final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations'. Goldsmith pointed out that although Mr Blair could in theory make the decision, a court could decide otherwise.

2. Goldsmith questioned whether Britain could attack Iraq by using UN Resolution

The legal advice explained why the resolution's warning of 'serious consequences' if Saddam continued to flout the UN fell crucially short of permitting military action. The exact wording had important implications. It did not say 'all necessary means' - UN terminology for war, used when Saddam invaded Kuwait in 1990.

3. Goldsmith urged caution about going to war without a second UN resolution.

He said Mr Blair could go to war without one, but it would be much 'safer' and desirable to secure a second resolution giving specific approval to military intervention.

4. Mr Blair was warned of the risks of relying on the earlier UN resolution used to eject Saddam from Kuwait.

The legal advice challenged Mr Blair's claims that Britain and the United States had a right to go to war by 'reviving' UN Resolution 678, passed in 1990 when Saddam invaded Kuwait. Resolution 678 did not permit them to invade Iraq itself. The limited nature of Resolution 678 was one of the chief reasons the Allies did not try to topple Saddam when he was ousted from Kuwait in the 1991 Gulf War. In principle, Resolution 678 could be revived; in practice it could be difficult.

5. Goldsmith drew attention to UN weapons inspector Hans Blix and his search for weapons of mass destruction.

On March 7, 2003, the day the legal advice was written, Mr Blix reported to the UN Security Council that 34 Iraqi al-Samoud missiles had been disabled. He said Iraq was being more helpful generally and that no weapons of mass destruction had been found so far. By the time Mr Blair received Goldsmsith's legal advice, he would have been aware of Blix's latest report.

6. He explained that the American government's position on the legality of the war did not apply in Britain.

Goldsmith explained the legal stance taken by George Bush and why he faced none of the legal restraints confronting Mr Blair. The US Congress had given Mr Bush special powers to declare the war legal in American law. It also detailed why, in the US view, a second resolution was unnecessary.

Caveats stripped out

All six caveats were stripped out when the Attorney General's nine-paragraph 'summary' was published ten days later. This summary declared the war was legal.

At a press conference on February 23 this year, Mr Blair was challenged whether the Attorney General's 'summary' on the issue was a fair representation of his legal advice. He snapped: "That is what he said and that is what I say."

One senior figure who has a copy of the Attorney General's legal advice said last night: "The Government sexed it up in the same way that it sexed up claims of missiles capable of being launched in 45 minutes."

Another source said: "When you clear away the legalese the picture is clear: the Attorney General believed the legality of the war was highly dodgy, and in all likelihood, it was illegal."

Leading international lawyer Phillipe Sands, who has led the campaign to show that the Iraq war was illegal, added: "These new disclosures confirm that the 'summary' produced by Lord Goldsmith in the Lords can in no way be described as a fair summary of the legal advice he gave the Prime Minister. It is utterly misleading of Mr Blair to pretend otherwise."

A spokesman for Lord Goldsmith said: "The Attorney General presented his view to Cabinet on March 17, 2003, that military action in Iraq would be lawful. It was his own, genuinely-held, independent view.

"Legal advice is confidential, protected by professional privilege and we don't comment on the process of giving advice. The Parliamentary statement of March 17, 2003 never purported to be a summary of the Attorney General's advice."

The legal wrangle dates from 2002 when Foreign Office legal chief Michael Wood and his deputy Elizabeth Wilmshurst confronted Jack Straw over their belief the war was illegal without a second UN resolution.

Mr Straw told them: "I am a lawyer, I have negotiated every dot and comma of this. Thank you for your advice but I am not going to take it."

Ms Wilmshurst and Mr Wood appealed to Lord Goldsmith to overrule Straw. Goldsmith told them: "I am not permitted to give you any advice but you know what my view is." They knew he believed the war was illegal, but dare not say so.

On February 11, 2003, as war approached, and with Mr Blair close to panic over the legal fiasco, Goldsmith flew to the White House to meet US National Security Council legal chief, John Bellinger.

His message was clear: the US had no legal worries because Congress had already given Mr Bush the power to rule the war legal. In addition it believed there was no need for a second UN resolution.

Mr Bellinger later boasted: "We had a problem with your Attorney General who was telling us it was legally doubtful under international law. We straightened him out."

The reference in the legal advice to the US position may be one of the reasons Mr Blair is reluctant to publish it, since it would be held as further proof that he was Mr Bush's 'poodle'.

The legal advice was written on March 7 and given to Mr Blair .

On March 13, Goldsmith met the Prime Minister's confidants, Lord Chancellor Lord Falconer and Downing Street aide Baroness Morgan.

On March 15, Goldsmith asked for - and obtained - a written assurance from Mr Blair declaring Iraq was in breach of the UN orders.

This story first appeared in . For more great stories, buy this week's Mail on Sunday.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...a_source=&ct=5

[larth (POL)]

se il bugiardo blair ha "la vittoria certa" significa che all' elettore inglese importa un fico secco dell' irak e delle relative bugie ...

o quantomeno che preferisce comunque la vecchia " zuppa" all' alternativa del " panbagnato" .. che e' la normale " scelta" delle " democrazie" maggioritarie..