More British Lies About Iraq

by **antiaristo** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 9:19 am

Some of you will know that I have been pointing to the culpability of Baroness Sally Morgan for some time, for example "Britain to the Hague?" (since lost). She was one of Blair's "aides" given power over civil servants (ie royal prerogative powers), along with Powell and Campbell. Like Lord Holme she was never elected to anything. She was there at the infamous meeting on 23 July 2002 -the Downing Street minutes meeting. And she was there, with Lord Falconer, at the 13 March 2003 meeting with Lord Goldsmith. Morgan and Falconer invoked the Treason Felony Act against Goldsmith. Morgan and Falconer re-wrote the Attorney General's revised opinion issued on 17 March 2003. The war was "legal" because the Queen says so. End of matter. Now it may become a hot issue. Although after Robin Cook, I wonder who will pursue it? No 10 refuses to reveal Iraq war e-mails DAVID CRACKNELL, POLITICAL EDITORSunday times 14 August 2005 DOWNING STREET is refusing to release e-mails from a senior official relating to the attorney-general’s legal advice in the run-up to the Iraq war, raising suspicions that No 10 intervened at a crucial time. It has admitted that an aide reporting to Tony Blair sent confidential e-mails relating to the advice just days before Lord Goldsmith, the attorney-general, issued a summary version of his legal advice which stated unequivocally that the war was legal. His original advice, issued 10 days earlier on March 7, 2003 warned that a decision to go to war could be challenged in the international courts. Until now the government has maintained that Goldsmith was left to get on with his work during this crucial 10-day period without political interference from Downing Street. Last week, however, Downing Street admitted to The Sunday Times that during that period Baroness Morgan, until recently Blair’s director of government relations, sent e-mails “relating” to the legal advice. It is not clear to whom they were directed. No 10 says that it will not release the e-mails because they relate to the “formulation of government policy”, which could suggest they reflect the arguments going on about the legal flaws in the case for war. Senior government sources suspect that the e-mails contain a summary of the arguments that No 10 was privately making to Goldsmith that, contrary to his original advice, war was justified because Saddam Hussein was in breach of United Nations resolutions. It has been reported that Morgan and another key Blair ally, Lord Falconer, the lord chancellor, held a meeting with Goldsmith on March 13 to discuss his opinion. Goldsmith has rejected the idea that pressure was put on him. No 10 made the admission about the Morgan e-mails after a request under the Freedom of Information Act. However, Downing Street is refusing to release the e-mails, claiming it is not in the public interest. ** Opposition MPs are likely to claim the reluctant release of the March 7 legal advice as a precedent that should lead to the Morgan e-mails being published. They want to know whether the documents were given to the official inquiries held into the Iraq war and its aftermath, including those of Lord Hutton and Lord Butler. A senior source at the Department for Constitutional Affairs, which Falconer heads, said colleagues had been been “s***ing” themselves that the Morgan e-mails would be released after No 10 went against precedent and released Goldsmith’s full legal advice during the election. No 10 has twice stalled since the first request by The Sunday Times three months ago. The Sunday Times is now appealing to the information commissioner.  **This is the same argument used in support of Public Interest Immunity certificates (PII), which have put many an innocent man in prison.

by **AnnaLivia** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 12:28 pm

antiaristo, when i proclaimed Washington DC to be the darkest spot on the planet, i half expected you to challenge that London deserved the title. it's such a close call. (and i wonder if the Vatican is satisfied with the bronze medal.) should have done it before now, but will take this opportunity to thank you and praise you for shining light in dark corners i'd never even have known existed, if not for your posts. i don't yet have the whole picture of your personal situation (i'm a latecomer still catching up), but if you ever decide to take a break from posting here, please tell us so, or you'll worry me sick. be well. keep well. and thanks again.

by **antiaristo** » Sun Aug 14, 2005 6:21 pm

AnnaLivia Dear, Thank you SO much for your words of support. Encouragement is so very important. I live a somewhat isolated existence, which makes me emotionally vulnerable. The Knowledge that there are people like you out there rooting for me is just the nourishment I need. But just like love, it must be expressed.

by **antiaristo** » Wed Aug 17, 2005 6:50 am

Families bid for Iraq war inquiry Press Association Wednesday August 17, 2005 9:58 AM The families of 17 soldiers killed during the Iraq war and one who took his own life after returning to Britain are launching a legal bid to secure an independent inquiry into the legality of the conflict. Their lawyers will lodge papers at the High Court in London seeking a judicial review of the Government's refusal in May to order an inquiry. They argue that, under human rights laws, if the UK state is involved in the use of lethal force there must be an independent inquiry. The court will also be asked to decide the remit of any inquiry. Among the questions raised by the families is "why the equivocal advice of March 7, 2003 from the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, changed so that 10 days later it was completely unequivocal in giving legal support for the war". The families want an inquiry which will cross-examine the Prime Minister, the Attorney General, the Defence Secretary at the time, Geoff Hoon, and the Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw. One of the applicants in the case is Rose Gentle, from Pollok, Glasgow, whose 19-year-old son Gordon, of the Royal Highland Fusiliers, was killed by a roadside bomb in Basra on June 28, 2004. Another applicant, Reg Keys, is the father of Tom Keys who was killed in Al Majar, near Basra, on June 24, 2003, while serving with the Royal Military Police. Lawyers are seeking an urgent preliminary hearing so that the judicial review can be held before the end of this year. The hearing is expected to take place at the Royal Courts of Justice in London in September, said the campaign group Military Families Against the War. The families have already been to Downing Street to formally deliver their request for "a full independent public inquiry" into the decision to invade Iraq and a full investigation into the deaths of their sons. But government lawyers turned down their call and Prime Minister Tony Blair later said there was no need to go "back over this ground again and again." The legal situation in the UK is this. The war was legal. Queen Elizabeth used the Treason Felony Act to nobble Lord Goldsmith. She used the Treason Felony Act (in the form of Public Interest Immunity certificates) to prevent ANY judicial review of this legality (just like BCCI, this question "was never addressed"). And even if the families succeed in forcing an inquiry she will use the Treason Felony Act to prevent the truth from emerging. There are two logical solutions to this problem. Get rid of the Queen or get rid of the Treason Felony Act. More here <a href="http://p097.ezboard.com/frigorousintuitionfrm10.showMessage?topicID=238.topic">p097.ezboard.com/frigorou...=238.topic</a>

More British Lies About Iraq

More British Lies About Iraq

queenie mums the word

Encouragement

Legality

Who is online