The New Forthcoming Downing Street Minutes

[babylonsister]

The New Forthcoming Downing Street Minutes
Submitted by davidswanson on Thu, 2008-02-28 15:54. Media


The war's full story?
By Robert Fox, Guardian


The order to disclose cabinet documents from March 2003 on the legal argument for war in Iraq marks a milestone - but not a huge change. For that has already happened. Usually it would take up to 30 years, or more if they involved state security, for such papers to emerge and be placed in the National Archives.

Now two sets of papers are to be disclosed within 28 days concerning discussions about the case for war. We know that the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith had indicated early in March 2003 that the legal justification for Britain attacking Saddam Hussein was equivocal, and far from clear-cut. Then in or around March 16 2003 we know he changed his mind and he gave a short summary of the legal argument for joining the American offensive.

The new disclosures should explain why he changed his mind, and more to the point who persuaded him to. Since then he said his view was changed concerning two crucial UN security council resolutions, numbers 678 of the late autumn of 1990 and 687 of March 1991. This does not represent an open and shut foundation for a casus belli, as such eminent authorities as Professor Adam Roberts of Balliol College Oxford have explained (pdf).

The UN doesn't allow for the notion of continuing authority. In other words an individual government like the Blair administration in London in 2003 cannot just latch onto any old UN resolution it pleases, and use it as a justification for the use of force. Resolution 678 was the UN mandate for using "all possible means" to eject Saddam Hussein's forces from Kuwait, which he had seized in an illegal act of aggression the previous August. Presumably, this was discharged when the Iraqi forces were thrown back from Kuwait in the late February of 1991.

Resolution 687 was the UN instrument for Saddam to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction, chemical, biological as well as nuclear. It was initialled by senior Iraqi military commanders at a ceremony at Safwan, near the Kuwait border. The mistake was that the American-led coalition did not force Saddam to come to Safwan personally to sign - for that would have given the deal the full strength of an international treaty.

more...

http://www.afterdowningstreet.org/?q=node/31395

[babylonsister]

1. There was a time, many moons ago, when this would have

excited people.

Yes, this is a shameless kick. :hide:

[leftchick]

2. not too many moons ago

thank you. :)

[babylonsister]

3. No, thank you! I guess this isn't as important as I thought. Maybe

folks are just discouraged; will the m$m even cover this when these papers are released? Olbermann will be hearing from me. ;)

[muriel_volestrangler]

4. Well, it is a couple of days old now

1st story on it on DU, which did get 36 recommendations: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2924550

And a Steve Bell cartoon on it: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=389&topic_id=2932237

But, as this comment piece says, the actual revelations may not be that much:

It will add another small piece in the jigsaw showing how the decision was made to go to war in Iraq, but some prominent critics of that decision argue that the Cabinet Room is not the place to look. Clare Short, who opposed the Iraq invasion and was in the Cabinet at the time of the two meetings, has said that the Cabinet was hardly given a chance to discuss the decision to go to war. To get to the bottom of the decision, she argues that a full inquiry is needed, which would tell the whole story once and for all. Maybe.


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/the-big-question-should-cabinet-minutes-be-released-and-what-difference-would-it-make-788500.html

[babylonsister]

5. Thank you! I had no idea

it had already been posted as it was up on top of afterdowningstreet this a.m. That kpete sure can hunt them down. And I'll have to try and remember Clare Short's name. Again, thanks.

[Hissyspit]

8. Hey! There's the world population map!

LOL

[flyarm]

10. Clare Short was on top of this from the get go..she quit her Cabinet position as Labor MP

she was basically the whip...she was Britain's secretary for international development..this was front page news when she quit..( but it got very little notice here in the US MSM)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3019871.stm


fly

[Pastiche423]

6. Thank you for posting this, babylonsister

I missed it the 1st go 'round.

[bleever]

7. Maybe, since the Bushies have rolled back habeas corpus,

it's going to take our politically adventitious alliance with Great Britain on the Iraq war to return us to it.

(As William F. Buckley may have said, if he had been concerned with the oppression of people other than the wealthy.)

[Fire Walk With Me]

9. I hope that there's a blow job or two in there, or we won't be able to impeach anyone.