Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Deputy Legal Advisor at State Department, resigned on March 18, 2003. In her letter of resignation, ONE paragraph was blanked out for the sake of the General Public’s interest.
TV4 has now revealed the missing paragraph, obtained under the Freedom of Information Act.
Documentary evidence has emerged showing that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, changed his mind about the legality of the Iraq war just before the conflict began.
The damning revelation is contained in the resignation letter of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, a legal adviser at the Foreign Office, in which she said the war would be a “crime of aggression”.
She quit the day after Lord Goldsmith’s ruling was made public, three days before the war began in March 2003.
Remainder below fold –
Ms Wilmshurst wrote:
“My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office before and after the adoption of UN Security Council resolution 1441 and with what the Attorney General gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line).”
The critical paragraph of her letter, published yesterday under the Freedom of Information Act, was blanked out by the Government on the grounds that it was in the public interest to protect the privacy of the advice given by the Attorney General. But last night the contents of the paragraph were leaked, and Tony Blair was facing fresh allegations of a cover-up.
There has long been speculation that Lord Goldsmith was leant on to switch his view, and to sanction the war – and confirmation of that would be devastating for the Prime Minister. The Wilmhurst letter stops short of explaining what caused Lord Goldsmith to change his mind.
Once again it has created an uproar in Great Britain, where another parliamentary document was released on the poor planning of post-war Iraq occupation and the mis-judgements made.
The US-led coalition failed to plan properly for Iraq’s insurgency after the ousting of Saddam Hussein, a committee of MPs says in a report.
Planning for the post-conflict phase in Iraq was “marred by a series of mistakes and misjudgements”, the Commons Defence Committee said.
Great Britain, once a vast empire across the world, roars like a kitten and produces more commission documents and pacification statements on US agression, on a level reminiscent of Lord Chamberlains overtures before World War II.
Oui – Liberté – Egalité – Fraternité
So I figured to put 1 and 1 together in a single diary.
Not for enjoyment, just sadness.
PS GREAT JOB Booman & congratulations
Oui – Liberté – Égualité – Fraternité
and thanks for this diary. Does it have any consequence in England? Or will Blair just shrug this off?
Now I get to teach the young whippersnappers a lesson from, ID # 20,000 on!
I was led here of course through dKos – but what are your preferences on topics for diaries.
I already see here my favorite writers – and diaries staying up longer than 15 min.! I’m falling in love all over again.
Oui – Liberté – Égalité – Fraternité
I rely on the recommend feature to dictate what the diary content will be.
See what gets comments and recommends…test the waters.
Fair enough.
Oui – Liberté – Égualité – Fraternité
May be due to the result of a failing political system when “leadership” can get away with just about anything. Blair’s stronghold is the last election result, a strong parliamentary majority and the conservatives voting with Labor for the Iraq war.
Only correction can be made by the electorate in NEXT election.
Parliament nor any of its commissions worked to uncover the shortcomings in foreign policy, the deceit and lies. One would turn to a bit of old-fashioned Brit’s snarkiness, like Robin Cook, when in the end you’re proven right.
Oui – Liberté – Égualité – Fraternité
Blair’s Sofa Style Ruling at Cabinet Meetings had been under attack before. Great similarity with his counterpart, US president Bush in not adaquately discussing policy with his cabinet, nor with individual cabinet members, read Paul O’Neill’s book on his DC years with Bush.
It is almost certain that his full advice contained several caveats that would have raised doubts about the war’s legality. He is understood to have said it could have been challenged in a court. Before submitting his advice, he demanded an assurance from Mr Blair in writing that Iraq had continued to breach UN sanctions, which implies he was not sure of his ground.
The Cabinet was only given an oral presentation of his legal advice. Ministers were never shown the full document. Some, like Clare Short, think they were kept in the dark.
So far, very little of this has been properly explored. The Government has refused an inquiry into the legal case for war, feeling that it has been dissected in more than enough detail already.
Oui – Liberté – Égualité – Fraternité