Print

Mail

wiki links

UK army refused war on legality doubts

Britain's army chiefs refused to go to war in Iraq amid fears over its legality just days before the British and American bombing campaign was launched.

The explosive new details about military doubts over the legality of the invasion are detailed in unpublished legal documents in the case of Katharine Gun, the intelligence officer dramatically freed last week after Lord Goldsmith, the UK attorney-general, dropped charges against her of breaking the Official Secrets Act.

The disclosure came as it also emerged that Goldsmith was forced to hastily redraft his legal advice to British Prime Minister Tony Blair to give an "unequivocal" assurance to the armed forces that the conflict would not be illegal.

Refusing to commit troops already stationed in Kuwait, senior military leaders were adamant that war could not begin until they were satisfied that neither they nor their men could be tried. Some 10 days later, Britain and America began the campaign.

Goldsmith also wrote to Blair at the end of January voicing concerns that the war might be illegal without a second resolution from the UN. Opposition members of parliament (MPs) seized on the revelations on Saturday night, accusing Goldsmith of caving in to political pressure from the prime minister to change his legal advice on the eve of war.

On the fence

Senior government sources involved in putting together critical legal advice on the war said that Goldsmith was originally "sitting on the fence" and that his initial advice was "prevaricating." This was "tightened" up only days before the conflict began after concerns were raised by Sir Michael Boyce, the then chief of defense staff who told senior ministers of his worries.

It is believed that Boyce demanded an unequivocal statement that the invasion of Iraq was lawful. It is understood that it was only after seeing Goldsmith's final legal advice, given days before the outbreak of war, that Boyce gave his approval.

Without this legal reassurance, military leaders and their troops could have laid themselves open to charges of war crimes. At the time, UK troops were already in Kuwait poised for an invasion.

Last week, Goldsmith controversially agreed to drop the UK government's prosecution of the former security headquarters whistleblower Katharine Gun. Her defense had demanded documents relating to his legal advice, including communications with the prime minister.

Although Goldsmith denied his decision to drop the case was political, critics of the war believe the government was desperate to prevent these details from being revealed in open court.

Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said: "These allegations go to the very heart of the government case for war, and inevitably its credibility. I have no doubt whatever that if parliament had been told these things, the government would not have achieved its majority and would have been unable to go to war. Public opinion already deeply divided would have swung overwhelmingly against the government."

Added pressure

The opposition have demanded a statement in the House of Commons from Blair and will redouble the pressure for an explanation. The revelations will also increase pressure for the Butler inquiry, set up by the prime minister into intelligence in the run-up to the war, to study the Gun case and subsequent revelations. It will take evidence in private.

Saturday night former Cabinet minister Clare Short said that she knew of military doubts over the legality the war.

"I was told at the highest level in the department that the military were saying they wouldn't go, whatever the PM said without the attorney-general's advice. The question is was the AG leant on?" Short said.

"This was a very personal operation by Tony Blair. The attorney-general is a friend of Tony's, put in the Lords by Tony and made attorney-general by Tony," she said.

It has also been established that GCHQ, the government's top-secret surveillance center, has a specialist unit dedicated to spying on the UN. The revelation will strengthen claims that the bugging of Britain's diplomatic allies at the UN was routine and is likely to trigger a fresh international furore over the legality of Britain's spying operations abroad.

The former Chilean ambassador to the UN, Juan Gabriel Valdes, said last night: "All I can say is what I said at the time when asked if I had information about spying on Chile and I said yes, it has been proved.

"It [eavesdropping] was one more element of tension during some very tense weeks. Nobody was very surprised. But it is one thing not to be surprised and another to do clearly illegal things," he said.

Gun leaked a top-secret e-mail last March revealing a joint British-American operation to spy on the UN in the run-up to war.

She claimed she acted to prevent the loss of human life in an illegal war.

Close allies

Downing Street refused on Saturday to comment on the allegations. Blair's spokesman also refused to say whether the White House had been consulted over the dropping of the Gun case, despite growing conviction at Westminster that it would have been inconceivable for the Foreign Office not to have taken its closest ally's views into consideration.

Despite Blair's refusal to give a statement to the Commons, the government is unlikely to escape further questioning. Both Foreign Secretary Jack Straw and Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon are already due to answer questions next week while Home Secretary David Blunkett will be grilled by a joint Commons inquiry into homeland security.
This story has been viewed 2397 times.