Unlawful War?

[Sasha13]

I am woefully ignorant of the facts of why we went to war with Iraq - I know it was because they supposedly had WMD's which turned out not to there. How does this make the war illegal? Are there any lawful reasons for war? If so, what? Surely Saddam could have destroyed the WMDs?

[jake-the-peg]

The question of the legality of the war turns on whether the UN resolution (1441) authorised the use of force against Iraq or whether another was required.

Tony Blair asked Lord Goldsmith (the Attorney general and chief legal expert) for an opinion on whether it did or not.

The UK and the US went to war with no further resolution.

Blair was for a long time evasive about the full content of Goldsmiths' advise and it seems that advise was ammended at one point.

His advice concluded
1/ that there was an arguable case on both sides
2/ it would be safest to seek an additional resolution (which was not done)
3/ Regieme change (removal of Saddm Hussein) could be accomplished but could not be a prime objective.

You can read the full text of Goldsmiths' advice here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,147245 0,00.html

[Loosehead]

The war was not illegal, it was covered by existing resolutions. It has become fashionable to call it so.

[kwicky]

It cannot be an illegal war. Bush and Blair are above the law else they would be appearing at the Hague.

[jake-the-peg]

Gosh Loosehead - give Lord Goldsmith a ring - his analasis was pages long and very confusing - I'm sure he'd be amazed at how effortlessly you sort through all this complex legal nonsense!

:c)

I'd be pretty confident theat a main US aim was always simply to remove Sadam - which was NOT in the UN mandate and hence would make the US actions illegal. I'm not so convinced about Blair - I personally think he was looking for a way out which just wasn't there.

But what someone believes and what constitutes evidence are two very different things