Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: Avvocatura di Stato Inglese: L'invasione dell'Irak era illegale - The Guardian

L'avvocato di stato inglese manifesto' parere contrario all'invasione, 
ed esso venne manipolato dal governo Blair per ottenere l'entrata in 
guerra dal Parlamento.
Am.
Revealed: the rush to war 
  Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday February 23, 2005
The Guardian 
  The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned less than two weeks 
before the invasion of Iraq that military action could be ruled illegal.
The government was so concerned that it might be prosecuted it set up a 
team of lawyers to prepare for legal action in an international court.
And a parliamentary answer issued days before the war in the name of 
Lord Goldsmith - but presented by ministers as his official opinion 
before the crucial Commons vote - was drawn up in Downing Street, not in 
the attorney general's chambers.
The full picture of how the government manipulated the legal 
justification for war, and political pressure placed on its most senior 
law officer, is revealed in the Guardian today.
It appears that Lord Goldsmith never wrote an unequivocal formal legal 
opinion that the invasion was lawful, as demanded by Lord Boyce, chief 
of defence staff at the time.
The Guardian can also disclose that in her letter of resignation in 
protest against the war, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at 
the Foreign Office, described the planned invasion of Iraq as a "crime 
of aggression".
She said she could not agree to military action in circumstances she 
described as "so detrimental to the international order and the rule of 
law".
Her uncompromising comments, and disclosures about Lord Goldsmith's 
relations with ministers in the run-up to war, appear in a book by 
Philippe Sands, a QC in Cherie Booth's Matrix chambers and professor of 
international law at University College London.
Exclusive extracts of his book Lawless World are published in today's 
Guardian.
Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair in a document on March 7 2003 that the 
use of force against Iraq could be illegal. It would be safer to have a 
second UN resolution explicitly sanctioning military action.
"So concerned was the government about the possibility of such a case 
that it took steps to put together a legal team to prepare for possible 
international litigation," writes Mr Sands.
The government has refused to publish the March 7 document. It was 
circulated to only a very few senior ministers. All Lord Goldsmith gave 
the cab inet was a later oral presentation of a parliamentary answer 
issued under his name on March 17.
This appears contrary to the official ministerial code, which states 
that the complete text of opinions by the government's law officers 
should be seen by the full cabinet.
On March 13 2003, Lord Goldsmith told Lord Falconer, then a Home Office 
minister, and Baroness Morgan, Mr Blair's director of political and 
government relations, that he believed an invasion would, after all, be 
legal without a new UN security council resolution, according to Mr 
Sands.
On March 17, in response to a question from Baroness Ramsay, a Labour 
peer, Lord Goldsmith stated that it was "plain" Iraq continued to be in 
material breach of UN resolution 1441.
"Plain to whom?' asks Mr Sands. It is clear, he says, that Lord 
Goldsmith's answer was "neither a summary nor a precis of any of the 
earlier advices which the attorney general had provided".
He adds: "The March 17 statement does not seem to have been accompanied 
by a formal and complete legal opinion or advice in the usual sense, 
whether written by the attorney general, or independently by a barrister 
retained by him".
Separately, the Guardian has learned that Lord Goldsmith told the 
inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run-up to war that his 
meeting with Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan was an informal one. He 
did not know whether it was officially minuted.
Lord Goldsmith also made clear he did not draw up the March 17 written 
parliamentary answer. They "set out my view", he told the Butler 
inquiry, referring to Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan.
Yet the following day, March 18, that answer was described in the 
Commons order paper as the attorney general's "opinion". During the 
debate, influential Labour backbenchers and the Conservative frontbench 
said it was an important factor behind their decision to vote for war.
Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary and leader of the Commons, 
yesterday described the Guardian's disclosure as alarming. "It 
dramatically reveals the extent to which the legal opinion on the war 
was the product of a political process." he said.
The case for seeing the attorney general's original advice was now 
overwhelming, Mr Cook added. "What was served up to parliament as the 
view of the attorney general turned out to be the view of two of the 
closest aides of the prime minister," he said.
Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, 
said the government's position had been seriously undermined. "The 
substance of the attorney general's advice, and the process by which it 
was partially published, simply do not stand up to scrutiny," he said.
Sir Menzies added: "The issue is all the more serious since the 
government motion passed by the House of Commons on March 18 2003, 
endorsing military action against Iraq, was expressly based on that 
advice."
He continued: "The public interest, which the government claims 
justifies non-publication of the whole of the advice, can only be served 
now by the fullest disclosure."
Lord Goldsmith twice changed his view in the weeks up to the invasion. 
He wrote to Mr Blair on March 14 2003, saying it was "essential" that 
"strong evidence" existed that Iraq was still producing weapons of mass 
destruction.
The next day, the prime minister replied, saying: "This is to confirm it 
is indeed the prime minister's unequivocal view that Iraq is in further 
material breach of its obligations."
The same day, Lord Boyce got the unequivocal advice he says he was after 
in a two-line note from the attorney gen eral's office. The extent of 
concern among military chiefs is reflected by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, head 
of the army, quoted by Peter Hennessy, professor of contemporary history 
at Queen Mary College, London. "I spent a good deal of time recently in 
the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars," said Sir Mike. 
"I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in the Hague."
Mr Sands records that Lord Goldsmith visited Washington in February 2003 
when he met John Bellinger, legal adviser to the White House National 
Security Council. An official later told Mr Sands: "We had trouble with 
your attorney, we got him there eventually."
A spokeswoman for Lord Goldsmith said yesterday: "The attorney has said 
on many occasions he is not going to discuss process issues". The March 
17 parliamentary answer was the "attorney's own answer", she said adding 
that he would not discuss the processes of how the document was drawn up.
The Department for Constitutional Affairs said it could not say if Lord 
Falconer had a role in drawing up the answer.

illegal.
-Stefano

 -Stefano
Ah, buona questa. Evochero' per te il Dr. Johnson in seduta spiritica, 
per sapere che ne pensa. Poi ti faccio sapere, eh?
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Am.

 Ah, per te sarebbero due cose diverse?


 -Stefano
Amalric: Ah, per te sarebbero due cose diverse?
SdC: > Non *PER ME* ma *PER LA LINGUA INGLESE* :)

Typo, De Ce'
...disse il bue all'asino... :)
-Stefano

 wrote:

Ah, per te sarebbero due cose diverse?
BWAHAHAH!
Am.

nulla.
Peccato che l'Iraq ha una estensione pari a
land: 432,162 sq km
a fronte per l'Italia di una estensione pari a
land: 294,020 sq km
Cioe' grande quasi due volte l'Italia :)"
Questa, l'algebra secondo De Cesari.
432,162 / 294.020 = 1,47
Questa, l'algebra secondo tutti gli altri.
Resta sempre da spiegare come abbia preso una laurea, con questo curriculum 
è un fatto inspiegabile. 

 
C.D.O. :)
-Stefano

per sapere che ne pensa. Poi ti faccio sapere, eh?
C.V.D. :)
*LOL*
-Stefano

 C.D.O. :)
Typo, De Ce': C.T.O. :)
Namib

 Ad ogni modo tutta la faccenda è del tutto irrilevante.
No: avverti' "che l'azione militare potesse essere giudicata illegale"
Il che nell'understatement inglese equivale a dire che lo era. Il casino 
al parlamento inglese sta a dimostrarlo.
A confermarlo il legale del Ministero degli Esteri:
The Guardian can also disclose that in her letter of resignation in 
protest against the war, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at 
the Foreign Office, described the planned invasion of Iraq as a "crime 
of aggression".
Irrilevanti per chi? Per i propagandisti come Toni Baruch che nella 
guerra all'Irak (come magari domani alla Siria e all'Iran) vedono solo 
un gradito regalo fatto ad Israele? 
Ma andiamo! Mica c'abbiamo scritto 'giocondo' in fronte...
Am.

 curriculum è un fatto inspiegabile.
tremo a chiedertelo : in che cosa e' laureato ? 

 Ad ogni modo tutta la faccenda è del tutto irrilevante.
Baci, abbracci e lancio di riso e confetti.
Ecce Toni. 


I CULOTASTIERATI:
http://tonibaruch.buzznet.com/user/?id=921717

 Non *PER ME* ma *PER LA LINGUA INGLESE* :)
400C1EF4...@people.it
"That shit was *wrote* *from* ams67"
-- 
No more tradition's chains shall bind us;
Arise, ye slaves! No more in thrall!
The Earth shall stand on new foundations;
We have been naught - We shall be All!

 Ah, per te sarebbero due cose diverse?
Sono due cose diverse. 
Ci sono dubbi che potesse essere dichiarata illegale. Quindi ci sono
anche ragioni per definirla legale.  Io trovo che questi ultimi siano
convincenti.
Ad ogni modo tutta la faccenda è del tutto irrilevante. 
Tb


A confermarlo il legale del Ministero degli Esteri:
Che vale meno di zero :)
-Stefano

 Grazie per la risposta. 
Prego, fuori il salmone.


 Grazie per la risposta.
LOL! la risposta del sonderkommando sara' che tu fai lingua in bocca con gli
antisemiti eccetera eccetera
--------------------------------
Inviato via 
http://arianna.libero.it/usenet/

 legalità, fa carne di porco della costituzione.
"fa carne di porco"?
Scusa, ma dove l'hai trovata questa colorita espressione?
E soprattutto, andando alla sostanza, avrei alcune domande:
1) se fanno politica con la violenza, come mai ambiscono ad ottenere voti 
per una rappresentanza parlamentare e ruoli di governo?
2) se non rispettano la legalità, come mai ambiscono ad ottenere voti per 
diventare legislatori?
3) se non rispettano la costituzione, come mai ambiscono ad ottenere voti 
per andare a giurare fedeltà alla costituzione qualora fossero eletti?
Ma ecco il domandone:
DOMANDONE: ammesso e non concesso che questi partiti debbano avere le 
caratteristiche che tu elenchi, chi mai sarà che dovrebbe valutare se 
abbiano o meno le carte in regola?
Grazie per la risposta. 

 "That shit was *wrote* *from* ams67"
ROTFL.
Ma si stuferà prima o poi di farsi scherzare da tutta Usenet? 

 Stavolta meriti l'aringa
Ti dò un salmone affumicato se rispondi a questa domanda: le democrazie 
vanno bene anche quando mandano al governo partiti sciiti o hezbollah oppure 
no?
E se no, perché?
Grazie per la risposta. 

 ha scritto nel messaggio 
news:39bgjqF...@individual.net...

INFORMATICA
Alla premiata università dei punti Mira Lanza.
Non ci si crede, eh. 

 -Stefano
Ah, e secondo te a che serve il legale del Foreign Office britannico, a 
preparare l'agnello con la menta? Oppure il pollo Tandoori? E secondo te 
non trova nel tempo libero qualche ora per occuparsi di *trattati*?
Forse nel tempo libero potresti anche tu andarti a leggere articoli e 
trattati che ti vengono graziosamente presentati. 
Dopo esserti preso una pasticca di litio ed esserti fatto una serena 
ripassatina dell'Inglese.
Non dico di seguirti le sedute del Parlamento Britannico, perche' quello 
non ne saresti capace neanche se ti dessi un cartocetto di fish & chips 
per incentivarti l'attenzione...
Magari ne riparliamo quando sei grande, eh?
Am.

Magari ne riparliamo quando sei grande, eh?
...disse il povero Amalric Bond aka Zupperman.... :)
-Stefano

 Non certo
Litio e a letto. 

 Internazionale
Ci sono cose illegali, nel diritto internazionale? Ohibņ. E quali?
Namib