Tomorrow morning, Sir Michael Wood, former Foreign and Commonwealth Office Legal Adviser, gives evidence to the Chilcott Inquiry. To my mind, this is the most important evidence to be given so far. Michael’s then deputy, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who resigned over the war of aggression, will give evidence in the afternoon, I believe speaking in public for the first time since her resignation.
The Legal Adviser at the Foreign Office is a very grand person indeed. You should understand it is a full time position. The FCO has a big department, named Legal Advisers. It is staffed by the cream of public international lawyers. There are assistant and deputy legal advisers,serving in the FCO in London and sometimes being posted to large Embassies abroad. Then there is THE Legal Adviser, who is a very grand personage indeed, with a palatial office overlooking St James’ Park.
I have no doubt at all that both Wood and Wilmshurst will rebuke Starw’s appalling lie that UNSCR 1441 was considered sufficient to justify an invasion, at the time that it was adopted. Wilmshurst’s resignation letter made it perfectly plain that was not true.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/01/jack_straws_big.html#comments
But the question is, whether the Committee will manage to hide that truth by leading the lawyers away from it in their questioning. I have previously described their method as obscuring all the key points in a comfortable fog of chuminess. Expect every possible use of the lateral tangent, the chairman’s intervention and the friendly assumption.
I am very sorry that until now Sir Michael Wood has perhaps been best known to a wider public as the man that the FCO wheeled in to tell me that it was perfectly legal to obtain intelligence from torture, as long as somebody else did the torture.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/documents/Wood.pdf
As I explain in Murder in Samarkand I was shocked by this because I knew Michael and he is a nice man. Even though he made a point in the meeting of indicating moral disapproval of a policy of using torture, it seems to me there should be a limit to which a lawyer is prepared to advise what the government can get away with.
I am hoping that Michael will redeem himself in the eyes of decent people tomorrow, and I believe that he will.
One of the most important structural questions that the Chilcott Inquiry must ask, is this:
Why does the Attorney General have the power to overrule the Legal Adviser on a point of international law?
The answer is not that the Attorney General has a democratic mandate. Nobody has ever voted for Lord Goldsmith. His only qualification was that he was a buddy of Tony and Cherie Blair.
Here is a select list of some of Sir Michael Wood’s internationally accepted publications on international law:
“The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents”, 23 International and Comparative Law Quarterly (1974)
“The European Convention on the Suppression of Terrorism”, 1 Yearbook of European Law (1981)
“The Legal Status of Berlin” (1987, with I. D. Hendry)
“Participation of Former Yugoslav States in the United Nations and in Multilateral Treaties”, 1 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (1997)
“The Interpretation of Security Council Resolutions”, 2 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (1998)
“International Seabed Authority: the First Four Years”, 3 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (1999)
“Northern and Western European Maritime Boundaries”, in: Colson/Smith, International Maritime Boundaries, Vol. V (2005)
“Towards New Circumstances in which the Use of Force may be Authorized? The Cases of Humanitarian Intervention, Counter-terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction”, in: The Security Council and the Use of Force: Theory and Reality – A Need for Change? (eds. N. Blokker/N. Schrijver, 2005)
“The United Kingdom’s Acceptance of the Compulsory Jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice”, in: Festskrift til Carl August Fleischer (eds. O Fauchald/H Jakhelln/A Syse, 2006)
“N?cessit? et l?gitime d?fense dans la lutte contre le terrorisme: quelle est la pertinence de l’affaire de la Caroline aujourd’hui?”, in: La n?cessit? en droit international Soci?t? fran?aise pour le droit international, Colloque de Grenoble, 2006
“The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea and General International Law”, 22 International Journal of Marine and Coastal Law (2007)
“The Selection of Candidates for International Judicial Office: Recent Practice”, in: Law of the Sea, Environmental Law and Settlement of Disputes: Liber Amicorum Judge Thomas A. Mensah (eds. T M Ndiaye/R Wolfrum, 2007)
Three lectures on “The UN Security Council and International Law” (2006), available on the website of the Lauterpacht Centre for Intenrational Law, University of Cambridge. An expanded version of these lectures will be published in due course by Cambridge University Press as a book within the Hersch Lauterpacht Memorial Lectures series
“The Law on the Use of Force: Current Challenges”, 11 Singapore Yearbook of International Law (2007)
“The Security Council and International Criminal Law”, 5 Romanian Journal of International Law/Revista Rom?na de Drept International (2007)
“The International Seabed Authority: Fifth to Twelfth Sessions (1999-2006)”, 11 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law (2007)
“The General Assembly and the International Law Commission: What Happens to the Commission’s Work and Why?”, in: I Buffard, J Crawford, A Pellet, S Wittich (eds.), International Law Between Universalism and Fragmentation. Festschrift in Honour of Gerhard Hafner (2008)
“The Principle of Non-Intervention” (with Maziar Jamnejad), 29 Leiden Journal of International Law (2009)
“Detention during International Military Operations: Article 103 of the Charter and the Al-Jedda case”, 47 Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre/The Military Law and the Law of War Review (2009)
Entries in R Wolfrum (ed.), Max Planck “Encyclopedia of Public International Law” (online edition 2008), including:
Committee of Legal Advisers on Public International Law (CAHDI) International Courts and Tribunals, Discontinuance of Cases Final Act International Seabed Authority Legal Advisers Macedonia Peace, Breach of State Practice Teachings of the Most Highly Qualified Publicists United Nations Administrative Tribunal, Applications for Review (Advisory Opinions) United Nations Charter, Enemy State Clauses United Nations Security Council Use of Force, Prohibition of Threat
Here is the complete list of all of Lord Goldsmith’s internationally accepted publications on international law
NOTHING
Which is why the Legal Adviser is paid more than the Attorney General.
So the government spends a very great deal of public money on employing a whole cadre of the best public international lawyers in the world, but takes its legal advice on matters of war and peace from a shifty barrister mate of Tony Blair.
The decision whether to go to war is a political question. But the legal advice should come from the most qualified source, not the source most likely to agree with the Prime Minister.
Even that commonsense observation is going to be much too radical for the stuffed Establishment shirts of the Chilcott Committee.
By the way, “Thanks for this great threat” made perfect sense to me.
Glenn, no, was thinking of steelback/apostate/jaded, or whichever name they chose to use next.
MJ: yes, I agree with you. It is nothing to do with being right wing. My 80 year old neighbour, an original Aldermaston marcher, aired his legitimate doubts and misgivings about Kelly to me this morning.
Re ‘looking at evidence’: I think that’s what happens on this board. Glenn & Larry & asoba have carried on the Q&A on 9/11 for example; and credit to the person who did it most politely.
But if you look at extremist web-sites (again, you’re right, they are off the political scale) you find that they throw all the ‘legitimate doubts and misgivings’ into a huge mish-mash which can have people accepting untruths as gospel because they are taking their source for granted. For people who have ended up by default accepting practically nothing they are told by ‘officials’, this is an ironic turn.
And it holds the door wide open for suspicion, fear, paranoia and mistrust: not a pleasant climate for politics to feed on.
Again, why I like this board; it doesn’t do that.
So for ‘extremist websites’ as you say, MJ, read ‘the Daily Mail’, although the Express are as bad. Both currently targeting immigrants, gypsies, Muslims and poor people, instead of ‘Jews’, though.
Back to the topic (sorry); as someone points out on the thread below, at least this enquiry has exposed Hutton: we are getting somewhere.
Craig, I am a graduate of one of the best law schools in the States, my legal studies and work experience included public and private international law, and at one point I commanded a salary in New York that was much much higher than what you ever made for the FCO.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but you have no law degree.
So I would think that you would back off and let more qualified people assess the legality of an action under international law.
writerman
“..and knew that he’d be handsomely rewarded for it in the future, which he has been.”
..the conversation at Camp David that nobody heard perhaps. Does ‘sovereign immunity’ apply to accepting $money for murder?
Technicolour,
“what do you think we would have lost by refusing to support the US in this?”
Withdrawal of intelligence sharing comes to mind – haven’t we been warned before?
“So I would think that you would back off and let more qualified people assess the legality of an action under international law”.
I think that was rather the point Craig was making – in respect of FCO Legal Advisers and Goldsmith.
@Larry – don’t you think that Wilmshurst’s legal opinion, and that of a phalanx of other legal opinions, counts for something? I mentioned the Matrix Chambers opinion in another thread (the view that Blair could have been impeached whilst in office), and it was dismissed as meaningless by our resident Blairite. But I maintain that also is still worthy of note.
I am not sure why you point out that you were paid more than Craig. Visitors to this board, whether their politics are left or right, don’t generally assume that people who are well paid are necessarily right. Blair is a well paid lawyer, after all, just (at best) a misguided one. He comes from a nice Law School too, I should think – and a fat lot of good it did his reasoning! 😉
Jon, Craig brought up the issue of salary. I have no idea why – it proves nothing.
Mark, it’s strange, because I can’t see Blair needing to be shown the fist in the glove.
But yes, intelligence sharing – though the loss of US intelligence might be bearable, judging by recent events.
Air Commodore Alastair Mackie argued at the time of the Iraq invasion that the issue was Trident. He said that the missiles are targeted by agreement with the US, and that the US has a veto over their use. Unlike France, with its own nuclear weapons, or the rest of nuclear free Europe, Britain has become militarily dependent on the US, and its automatic ally as a result.
?
Larry,
‘I am a graduate of one of the best law schools in the States, my legal studies and work experience included public and private international law, and at one point I commanded a salary in New York that was much much higher than what you ever made for the FCO.’
I thought I was pompous! your language here and your obsession with character assassination and your attempts to keep the truth finder in eternal subjection while arguing that Saddam’s torture chambers might some how mitigate the pain and suffering in Iraq just shows to me your insipid character, ruthless twists and turns and belligerence to extreme I associate with your kind of two bit money for anguish New York lawyer.
Larry,
‘I am a graduate of one of the best law schools in the States, my legal studies and work experience included public and private international law, and at one point I commanded a salary in New York that was much much higher than what you ever made for the FCO.’
I thought I was pompous! your language here and your obsession with character assassination and your attempts to keep the truth finder in eternal subjection while arguing that Saddam’s torture chambers might some how mitigate the pain and suffering in Iraq just shows to me your insipid character, ruthless twists and turns and belligerence to extreme I associate with your kind of two bit money for anguish New York lawyer.
“An Open Letter to Sir John Chilcot”…
http://tinyurl.com/ycwgsua
George,
Thanks and to Brian for his resilience and Lynda for her bravery.
Regarding the “dignity and conviction” shown by Blair, before New “Labour” was elected, there was a documentary made about the NL project. Unfortunately, I can’t remember which channel it was broadcast on now, but it contained a telling section which I would like to see repeated every time Blair puts on his “sincere” act. Discussing Thatcher with his now notorious spin doctors, he made the point that what people said of Thatcher was, “I may not always agree with what she says, but I admire her conviction.” He went on to say that it was essential for New “Labour” to replicate that. Time and again we have seen the tawdry little actor doing his utmost to do precisely that, right up to his valedictory “Whatever you think about me, I believed what I was doing was right.” It’s a shame that so few people seem to have seen this crucial documentary, or remember it, and that to a large extent the ruse seems to have worked for him, just as it did for Thatcher. You may not be able to fool all the people all the time, but you can fool enough of them for enough of the time to do pretty much anything you want.
Mark, in a previous thread you plagiarized Neal Boortz, an American conservative silly goose, and then tried to pass the text off as the work of your “American friends”.
Has anyone read Leo Abse’s ‘The Man behind the Smile’? I read it far too quickly (staying over night somewhere). Must get it again, it was superb, as I remember.
and presumably, Larry, you courteously pointed where the information in the text was wrong, and provided your own interpretation of events, with sources?
Even if something is in the Daily Mail doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong, you know.
Do people get more right-wing as they get older? I found myself agreeing with the Daily Mail on this headline about Alastair Campbell –
“Shameless, swaggering and STILL lying!”
“and presumably, Larry, you courteously pointed where the information in the text was wrong, and provided your own interpretation of events, with sources?”
Are you able to read?
Technicolor,
Interestingly
Rearranging the letters of ”Tony Blair – The Man Behind the Smile’ Leo Abse’
We get:
Bemoaned in shame, one shabby little Hitler.
(by David Bourke using Anagram Genius) (2007)
Times newspaper is saying the police are considering a ring of steel and an exclusion zone round the QEII Conference Centre in Westminster.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article7000698.ece
Chaps, Larry (and his para-ego, Eddie) doesn’t give a flying phuque about genuine enquiry or the case for the open society; indeed, he may or may not be a lawyer, but he is most certainly a knocking spoiler doing the Yankee elite’s work on this and who knows what other boards. I wouldn’t go so far to call him an agent provocateur, but by Jove he’s got a bee in his bonnet about Craig’s blog.
There ya go, Larry – ye want fries with that, big man?
“Craig, I am a graduate of one of the best law schools in the States, my legal studies and work experience included public and private international law, and at one point I commanded a salary in New York that was much much higher than what you ever made for the FCO.”
@Larry: you continue to intrigue me.
@Larry
“…So I would think that you would back off and let more qualified people assess the legality of an action under international law”
I don’t see Murray saying anywhere that he was qualified to ‘assess the legality of an action under international law’.
It’s not unreasonable at all to observe a huge disparity in qualifications, as listed, between Goldsmith and Wood in terms of documented ability to interpret international law. One has a history of it…the other doesn’t
Suggesting there’s no difference between Wood and Goldsmith is like saying there’s no difference between Carpenters and Cabinet makers because they both use wood!
Going further with this…is it only cabinet makers and carpenters that can have a legitimate opinion on woodwork…even when they’re installing a kitchen in your home?
Surely you’d be interested in HOW they get the kitchen done only in so far as the end result is solid and reflects something of your taste as an employer?
When was the last time you handed over the house keys…paid the woodworkers and said “Surprise me! Fit a kitchen anyway you like! Whatever you do is entirely up to you as I’m not qualified to have a legitimate opinion on the end result for I’m not a woodworker, carpenter or cabinet maker.”?
Another that will never tell the truth about what went on about many things…
http://tinyurl.com/ye3438w
Larry,
Do you specialize in Chapter 11 bankruptcy and business restructuring?
“Are you able to read?”
Oh go on, say “No”.
What seems to characterize Blair is his narcissism and over-inflated ego. His justification, the sincerity justification, is all well and good, but does it stand up to scrutiny?
Just because one believes something, and acts on that sincere belief, it doesn’t automatically follow that one is magically absolved from the consequences or responsibility of ones actions. This must surely apply when the action is taking part in a war. Surely one has to weigh, on the scales of justice, the terrible consequences for the people of Iraq, of Blair’s “honest” mistake?
I wonder how Blair has the audacity to use the “conviction” argument when it’s so primative and can be refuted so easily? He seems consumed by his own ego at times.
I think he exhibits many of the classic traits of the sociopath, and if one adds the disregard for human life, then he’s arguably a borderline psychopath.
His current excuse, that even though there were no weapons of mass destruction; Saddam was a bad man, a threat to his own people and the region, and the world is better off without him; shows how Blair lacks both empathy, conscience, morals, and how unbalanced he is. It’s like he has a one-track mind and focuses on what’s good for him personally, what advances his personal agenda, and then he finds the ways and means to fulfill and justify his agenda with scarcely a thought of the consequences for others.
One can argue that getting rid of Saddam was a “good thing”, even though it blatantly broke accepted international norms, and was a clear act of military agression; but what about the price of doing the “good thing”? The price paid by the Iraqi people?
Blair, in his recent TV interview, seemed to think that he’d just have had to conjure some other arguments for attacking Iraq, if the WMD line wasn’t available to him. It’s the use of the word “just” that concerns me. We are talking about War here, not some grubby little Westminster tiff over taxes!
One has to weigh in the balance the gain, getting rid of Saddam, with the collosal cost to Iraq. Blair is aware of this because he even had the cold, frightening, audacity to imagine that at some future point in time an Iraqi mother, who might have lost her child, would, when she’d calmed down, thank him for liberating Iraq! The sheer bravdo of the man is amazing.
Blair seems to believe, and he’s not alone in this, that when our actions lead to, at a minimum, hundreds of thousands of extra deaths, that our killing in good cause, is somehow better than Saddam’s killing in a bad cause. Do the dead give a damn about whether they were killed for a good or bad reason?
What also characterizes Blair is his chronic shallownes. He really doesn’t seem to understand very much at all, about anything of importance, apart from his own advancment, which is his prime motivation in life. Me, me, me. I, I, I.
MI5/MI6 agents are taught to smear, denigrate, belittle, abuse, destroy. But then it can be quite positive knowing that there are so many of them festering around the blog. The blog must not only be very influential but feared.
Ruth. That is one of the funniest things I’ve read on here. Well done.