The Black Vault Message Forums

Discover the Truth!        

The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

Iraq war `unlawful`

Discuss the War on Terrorism, Homeland Security, Iraq, Afghanistan, North Korea and other global terrorist concerns.

Postby Lashmar » Tue Jan 26, 2010 6:30 am

Foreign Secretary Jack Straw was warned by his chief legal adviser two months before the invasion of Iraq that such a move would be unlawful.


And if that is the case the British involvment in thw war is unlawful. I have hade a quick read through Straw's speech's in the Commons and I have not see that pop up anywhere.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479996.stm

Two videos that you should watch:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8471391.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8454239.stm

Now I've watch this on TV and I'm finding it quite fun to be honest. They're tying themselves in knots with every passing day. :lol:


Tony Blair is facing strong criticism after he said he would have gone to war in Iraq even if he had known there were not any weapons of mass destruction.


The video in this link was one hell of a shock, probably been posted but even so it was still good to see:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8410071.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8409596.stm

He said the former Prime Minister had used "alarming subterfuge" to mislead the British people into the conflict.


Now the word `mislead` is important here. Now, in my mind, they did not `mislead` us at all...they lied. Straw was informed that this was illegal and yet I have seen nothing which says he ever brought that up in the Commons nor any evidence to prove that it was a `legal` war. Blair said he would have gone in anyway regardless of WMD, the simple fact is Bush and Blair didn't want Suddam there anymore so they got rid of him.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8411326.stm


I hope news of this Inquiry has been getting over to the US becuase it's quite fun to watch. So far almost everything has been said in the Public domain (I think we had an hour last week which was behind closed doors but that's all we've had so far) and they're all starting to step on eachothers toes.
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby vulcan6gun » Tue Jan 26, 2010 7:00 am

I'm not so sure about that 'fun to watch' thing.

Groups of elderly people in robes that blather endlessly without saying a thing can be found in any rest home... not fun to watch. :(

Get Buckingham Palace and Parliament stoned, rob them blind, lock them in a hall together and wait for the drugs to wear off. Video of the aftermath should be hilarious. :lol:
Vulcan6gun

"Would you like your scientific research grilled, or roasted?"--Unknown Japanese whaler
User avatar
vulcan6gun
 
Posts: 830
Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 7:29 pm
Location: Grid DB82, 4 kts, -12 meters

Postby BloodStone » Wed Jan 27, 2010 5:25 am

Again , it was not unlawful.

according to post gulf one war. we had more than enough to continue the war.

Iraqi forces fired upon our jets many times thru the years in the no fly zones. That in itself gave us justification to continue the war.The only problem was President Bush didn't use that to continue the war. He never needed to sell anything else, but unfortunately he did.

Even though it has been stated they never found WMD's, they were there, and they were moved prior to the second invasion.

But again we didn't even need to prove WMD's, we should have just used the attacks in the no fly zone , as breaking the treaty to end the gulf war.

BloodStone...
If it were raining hookers, I'd get hit by a fag.
User avatar
BloodStone
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: U.S.S.A

Postby Lashmar » Wed Jan 27, 2010 6:26 am

BloodStone wrote:Again , it was not unlawful.


The war itself may not be illegal but our (UK) involvement is. I will try and find the video clip I need so you can see it for yourself but basically Jack Straw told Lord Goldsmith not to mention a conversation they had discussing the legality in the House of Commons…Goldsmith was directly questioned about the conversation in the Commons and he said it didn’t happen, even though it did, therefore he lied to Parliament and led Britain into the war.

This here is another part of it:

Sir Michael said Mr Straw also told him at their meeting that he had "often been advised things were unlawful and gone ahead anyway and won in the courts" when he was home secretary.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479996.stm

If Michael Wood tells you it was unlawful you can be pretty sure it was. If his advice did not reach either Blair or Brown then this war is Illegal. If the advice did reach either Blair or Brown then why did they not bring it up in the Commons? By withholding such important advice from the Commons they led this Country into a war with questionable legality and, therefore, committed High Treason.

The point of this enquiry is not the legality of the war, it is the legality of the British involvement and the information that the Government had. They’ve all but admitted that the 45 minuet claim was a lie (they said it was added as a “bit of local colour”), so then the intelligence service lied and the head of that report misled the government and committed High Treason.

No matter what comes out of this, somebody has misled somebody else and committed treason in the process.


That in itself gave us justification to continue the war.


But you didn't. You started a new war against the old enemy.


Personally I don’t particularly care about the Legality of war (I stand by “if you have guns than they do…enjoy yourself mate”) but the fact that they lied to Parliament and misled us into this war means that someone has committed treason.
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby BloodStone » Wed Jan 27, 2010 7:05 am

Seems to be a UK problem then, not a USA problem.


Iraq broke 13 UN resolutions in the time period from Gulf 1 to Gulf 2. That in itself continues the war. If the UN is not going to have any teeth than why have them exsist at all? The USA did the right thing.


Only you guys can decide whether the UK did.



BloodStone...
If it were raining hookers, I'd get hit by a fag.
User avatar
BloodStone
 
Posts: 1422
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: U.S.S.A

Postby Lashmar » Wed Jan 27, 2010 8:19 am

BloodStone wrote:Only you guys can decide whether the UK did.


And it's starting to become clear that we did not.

I don't agree with the `war` but for different reasons to those normally put forward. I don’t personally care that we went to war one tiny bit but I don’t like the fact that we’ve invaded a new country (Afghanistan) for no apparent reason, that we seem to have no tactics and no strategy and that we’re propping up a failed government that’s rotten to its core. I would have been much happier seeing an inquiry into this latest `war` but that’s just me.

So long as this enquiry comes out suggesting that Brown, Blair or Straw committed treason I’m going to be happy.


I would like to know more about the legality of the US invasion. I’m not a lawyer so I don’t know but in my mind the US should have invaded under one of the resolutions that Iraq broke for it to be a legal war. The US invaded under the guise of WMD but if they invaded under one of the Resolutions that Iraq broke then it would have been a legal war...therefore this war would have been illegal. As I said I'm not a lawyer so I don't know, that's just common sense.


Personally I also think we should have been allowed to keep Iraq, same as Germany in WWII. I think the world has gone soft; Russia had the right idea, you invade and you keep, this bunch of pansies we have not give it back to the `people` …what on earth do they do that for?
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby greeney2 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 10:57 am

Everyone thinks they know the legal answer to these questions, but the not so simple are extremely complex legal matters. We all know about the law when it comes to running a red light, or knowing not to rob a bank, but we do not understand the law as it relates to Presidential Powers, military tribunals vs US criminal laws, Constitutional intrupitations, powers of the President to act as Commander in Chief, etc.

I don;t think I agree too much about keeping countries if you invade. Anymore than if you liberate you keep it to. Half of Europe was occupied by Hitler, and when we liberated them all, the control went back to those countries. But it raises an interresting question, as to where are the laws pretaining to those kind of legal matters? When you make a quick blanket statement about Blair or Bush and the wars being illegal, do you really have a legal theory that would prosocute them, or just another opinion based on feelings? There is a monumental difference, and if any of us is versed enough to quote the laws involved, so far no body else has brought any cases to the courts. If you think the Gore election was complicated, imagine every issue with a Bush prosocution would be challenged by invoking National Security, and Presidental aids not being allowed to testify, Remember the Nixon tapes?
greeney2
 
Posts: 9597
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Lashmar » Wed Jan 27, 2010 12:50 pm

greeney2 wrote:Everyone thinks they know the legal answer to these questions, but the not so simple are extremely complex legal matters.


I agree. This sould make it slightly simpler though.

Asked why he left it as late as 13 March to issue a definitive statement that war was lawful, he said that was when the military had sought a "yes or no" answer.


Two things. 1. Why did the military not ask if the war was legal from the very start. 2. Why did the government not ask if it was legal at the very start. I can understand getting a last minuet okay but the way that sounds Lord Goldsmith wasn't even asked for a yes or no answer in private.

Tony Blair did not appear to welcome advice that UN authority was the only way for war to be justified, he told the inquiry.


And if that is the case, which I recon it would be, then Blair didn't do his `upmost` (which is what I think the Bill of rights says he must do) to insure he was doing the right thing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8481759.stm


When you make a quick blanket statement about Blair or Bush and the wars being illegal, do you really have a legal theory that would prosocute them, or just another opinion based on feelings?


Yes I have two grounds for Blair, none for Bush though.

1. The British government is illegal as you’ll see here (I’ve written to the Parliamentary Archives and I’m hoping to get confirmation in the next in the next two weeks):

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=3051

2. If he withheld information from Parliament he would have committed treason and led this country into war.


If the British Government is Illegal (which I’m going to find out within the next two week hopefully :D ) then every law that has been passed since the law was first broken (in the 70’s) would be illegal.
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Postby greeney2 » Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:06 pm

The laws of the UK and USA are two different worlds. Where you can easily claim the crime of Treason, it isn;t that easy of a calim the the USA. Even the infamous Johnny Taliban could't have been charged with Treason, its a very tricky legal distinction. Personally I would have hung him or shot him for Treason, and never missed a meal over it. I forgot why, but the crime of Treason in the USA has certain criteria, that makes it almost never charged of convicted over. I'll see if I can find it. also our President by the Constitution is the Commander in Chief of all US militarty forces. The President has a very wide range of powers with the military without the consent of Congress. He also doesn't need Congress to appove each and every order, he may act alone. President can send troops into combat without the Congress, including full scale retalitory Nuclear missile launches, under laws of National Security and powers of President alone. In other words, while you guys a asking Parliment you are under attack and get wiped out, we will smoke their asses in less than an hour for you, and tell Congress what happened when its over. :lol:
greeney2
 
Posts: 9597
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am

Postby Lashmar » Wed Jan 27, 2010 4:18 pm

on some matters they are, on othe things they aren't though.

I'm not sure what powers have inside the Armed Forces. I'm not sure he has any becuase there is a post higher than PM (Jack Straw holds it at the moment).


He also doesn't need Congress to appove each and every order, he may act alone.


And do you think that's a good thing? I think most Republics have a PM who do the running of the country and the President acts a bit like the Queen and just rubber stamps things. It's one other reason why we don't want a Republic here, it's very much the same for what ever system we go for. :lol:
Read between the lies
User avatar
Lashmar
 
Posts: 5795
Joined: Thu Apr 09, 2009 11:54 am
Location: UK

Next

Return to The War on Terrorism & Homeland Security

cron
  • View new posts
  • View unanswered posts
  • Who is online
  • In total there is 1 user online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 1 guest (based on users active over the past 10 minutes)
  • Most users ever online was 292 on Mon Apr 23, 2012 3:19 pm
  • Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest