Tonight:
4°c
Straw defends role over 'illegal' invasion of Iraq
Nicholas Cecil, Chief Political Correspondent18 Nov 2008
TWO senior Labour figures have hit back after their role in backing the invasion of Iraq was condemned as "flawed".
Lord Goldsmith and Lord Chancellor Jack Straw defended their actions after Lord Bingham, the former senior law lord and one of Britain's most respected judicial experts, described the military action by Britain and the US as a "serious violation of international law".
The intervention by Lord Bingham, a former Master of the Rolls and Lord Chief Justice, will reignite the debate over the Iraq war as the Government seeks to finalise a deal with Baghdad on British troops remaining in the south of the country.
Lord Goldsmith, who was Attorney General at the time of the 2003 invasion, defended his view that it was lawful.
He said: "Lord Bingham is entitled to his own legal perspective five years after the event, but at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully."
He added that the UN resolution that Iraq was deemed to have failed to comply with, and which ultimately led to the invasion, did not need further determination by the Security Council. Mr Straw, who was Foreign Secretary in 2003, accused Lord Bingham of failing to fully take into consideration the key UN resolution 1441 and specifically whether it laid down the need for an "additional lock" further decision to allow military action.
"In the event, the agreed text of 1441 was in accordance with the US/UK position that this resolution did not require this further lock," he said.
"So I do not accept Lord Bingham's conclusions, which do not, I am afraid, take proper account of the text of Security Council Resolution 1441 nor its negotiating history."
Lord Bingham said Lord Goldsmith's legal advice to the Government failed to acknowledge the lack of hard evidence implicating Iraq's non-compliance with UN resolutions.
Furthermore, he argued, it neglected to make clear that only the Security Council could authorise further action.
"This statement was flawed in two fundamental respects," he told the British Institute of International and Comparative Law last night.
"It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had."
Lord Bingham, 75, who stepped down in July from his role as a senior law lord, added that Lord Goldsmith's advice suggested that a decision over whether Iraq had not complied with UN resolutions could be made by someone other than the UN Security Council.
"If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK and some other states was unauthorised by the Security Council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and of the rule of law," he said.
Liberal Democrat leader Nick Clegg repeated his call for a full public inquiry into the decision to go to war. Supporting Lord Bingham's stance, said: "This is a damning condemnation of what was an unjustified invasion which we now know to have flouted international law."
Reader views (8)
In my opinion, The war was wrong in Iraq, was based on lies deciet, and monetary gain for certain politcal party's here in the US. The only country that had NO connection to 9/11 is the country we attack. The Bush admin. should be brought up on charges!
- Donald Filak, Bisbee,Az, USA, 19/11/2008 11:53
Report abuse
It's taken Bingham five years to summon up the courage to say what millions have said all along. Little wonder the thinking sector of the public are cynical of the judiciary. Hundreds of thousands of people died unnecessarily as a result of Blair and Bush's misguided invasion.
- Jim, Auckland, New Zealand., 18/11/2008 18:07
Report abuse
Furthermore all the Iraqi's and other nationals based in Iraq who either lost lives or sustained injury or loss of property through this unlawful military activity such bring civil actions against the British government et al, for damages. All pro Human Rights Organisations should assist such litigants who should be legally aided in respect of their claims against the British Authorities.
- Robert El-Cid,, Hull, East Yorks.,, 18/11/2008 17:55
Report abuse
Those who are 'anti' will never be anything other than 'anti', and will accept anything that even remotely supports their view as gospel. The same is true of the 'pro' faction. All that will come of this ongoing, back and forth accusation and denunciation will be political point scoring and reputation saving maneuvering.
- Rogan, Irving, 18/11/2008 14:34
Report abuse
A bit late now for Bingham to state what he has: where was HE in 2003??? Why didn't he publicly speak out then? I'm not impressed with the calibre of the judiciary in this country, seems they have a collective failure of backbone, and that's putting it mildly.
If they'd bothered to read Glen Rangwala's (from Cambridge university) analysis back in early 2003 - like I did - they would have come to the conclusion that bliar and co were full of it.
As for Goldsmith and Straw, well they would say the invasion of Iraq was legal, wouldn't they? But it wasn't, and they are at least guilty of a serious lack of judgement, and they are responsible for the deaths of all our soldiers who have died, and those maimed, not forgetting the Iraqis.
bush wanted to invade regardless, and was hoping for some UN backing to legally - but not morally - justify his warmongering actions. Even back then, bush, cheney etc had a reputation for blatant lying and cover-ups, so they couldn't be trusted on Iraq solely on that.
- Ralph, GB, 18/11/2008 12:01
Report abuse
Lord Goldsmith and Mr Straw should now face charges related to this 'serious breach of international law' at the International Criminal Court at The Hague and Mr Brown should see that they do.
- Peter Haldane, London, 18/11/2008 11:34
Report abuse
Until put to the test lord Bingham's opinion must remain just that, an opinion. However what Mr Straw fails to mention is that on his first attempt Lord Goldsmith came to the same conclusion, that military action would be illegal. But then, after some behind the scenes jiggery pokery, lo and behold he comes up with an entirely different opinion which says a war would be OK. What he didn't realize was that Blair and Bush had already been planning this invasdion for six months and what Blair wanted was some ex post facto justification for what he'd already decided. Blair should have been impeached.
- Jeremiah, London, 18/11/2008 10:37
Report abuse
History will record that the invasion was an illegal act, and I hope Mr Straw, Blair and Brown will take their rightful places - in the War Crimes Court at the Heague.
- Clive Allen, Brighton, UK, 18/11/2008 10:35
Report abuse
