Ex-Navy chief 'took private legal advice on Iraq'

[gulfcoastliberal]

Source: The Independent

By Kim Sengupta
Published: 11 June 2007

The head of the Royal Navy at the time of the Iraq invasion was so worried about the legality of the conflict that he sought his own private legal advice on justification for the war.

Admiral Sir Alan West, the First Sea Lord, approached lawyers to ask whether Navy and Royal Marines personnel might end up facing war crimes charges in relation to their duties in Iraq. The extraordinary steps taken by Sir Alan - which The Independent can reveal today - shows the high level of concern felt by service chiefs in the approach to war - concern that was not eased by the Attorney General's provision of a legal licence for the attack on Iraq.

The apprehension felt by the military commanders was highlighted at one meeting where General Sir Michael Jackson, the head of the Army, is reported to have said: "I spent a good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars. I have no intention of ending up in the cell next to him in The Hague."

In the approach to the 2003 invasion, Lord Boyce, the Chief of Defence Staff, insisted that the Attorney General, Lord Goldsmith, provide an unequivocal written assurance that the invasion was lawful. He eventually received a two-line note from Lord Goldsmith on 14 March 2003 confirming the supposed legality of the war. It has since emerged that the Attorney General had twice changed his views on the matter prior to that note.

Read more: http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article2643053.ece

---

Wow.

[Kagemusha]

1. Wow what? In practice, it comes down to 'because I said so'.

Since westerners are simply not going to be allowed to go to trial at the Hague in the present political order. Will not happen. That's only for people from bad countries.

[gulfcoastliberal]

2. I know. I'm surprised they got/published the informsation, though.

Too bad it wasn't news before they voted for the war.

[Peace Patriot]

4. Yeah, but it's interesting how concerned this commander was.

I find this fascinating. He and others caved, in the end. ("Just following orders.") But their concern indicates how tenuous the basis for the war was EVEN TO THOSE IN TOP COMMAND POSITIONS. Went to private lawyers. Jeez. Didn't trust Blair toadies.

It's so tragic, and so ironical, that the U.S. and the U.K., who were so pivotal in creation of post WW II international law, were the ones to utterly smash it. It's horrible, really, what Bush and Blair have done. So calculating, so deliberate, so utterly callous. I have often thought of the military people--especially officers--whose ethical lives center around the UCMJ and the Geneva Conventions, and rightful use of military power, finding themselves more cautious and more lawful-minded than the civilian leaders, and saw those whose orders they are obliged to obey lying and conniving to manipulate the newsstream, and pushing them into this disaster--even with the majority of the people in both countries opposing it--56% of the people in the U.S. (Feb. '03), a number that would grow to 70+% (today) and the UK starting out with something like 70% opposed. (--one illustration of the superiority of UK news sources, and the miserable condition of our own). Surely many officers knew that it was not only unlawful, but that it would become resoundingly unpopular.

Lt. Ehren Watada took the honorable route. Most did not.

I'm not a big fan of the military life--and I think that the military budget needs to be cut by about 90%, down to a true defensive posture (no more wars of choice!)--but I greatly sympathize with anyone caught in an ethical vs. career, or ethical vs. following orders, dilemma. I just hate Bush for this. For the horrors he has inflicted on the PSYCHES of the people who are obliged to follow his orders. The abuse of the power of command is DISGUSTING. It's similar to torturing prisoners--helpless human beings, who have no defense against you. The military structure is strict, and punitive. It doesn't allow much room for conscience. And it requires scrupulous adherence to certain principles of caution and respect, to make it bearable for human beings, and to make it viable at all. And I admire people who can live with such discipline and develop strong codes of honor and right conduct within it. Much as I hate war, and much as I despise the "military-industrial complex" for being monstrous leaches on our country, I cannot help but admire an honorable warrior, and I know that the truly honorable ones also hate war--and very likely hate the leaders who unleash the horror of war UNNECESSARILY.

So, yeah, why didn't they all say NO?! Like this guy consulting lawyers. He knew. But it's not so easy to decide to disobey orders, when you're in the military. It is, in essence, a Gandhian decision: are you ready to give up your entire life to right this wrong? can you take all of the consequences of it? can you even be clear about right and wrong, and lawful and unlawful, in this muddled world of conniving politicians ruling over people who are into a lifetime of following orders from above and who feel responsible for the safety of their countries? It's easy to say. But ask Lt. Watada how easy it is to do.

[frogcycle]

5. Well written thoughtful comments

One has to wonder - of all the COs who said "hell no, I won't go" during VN, what percent were making an admirable, moral "Ghandian decision," and what percent were making a personal decision to not go in harm's way.

eg, Was Muhammed Ali being a coward, or a man of high principle? Then what of Dick Cheney?

The distinction, if there is one, would be that Ali incurred personal consequences. All the young men who moved to Canada made life-changing decisions. Of the many who used the system to not go (deferments), had there not been deferments, what number would have chosen jail? How many of our top CEOs, if told they were being conscripted as generals to go lead this war, would say "but it is not legal?"

Perhaps our highly professional all-volunteer military has created an alternative universe wherein moral choices, legal choices, are harder to make. And perhaps that is by design.

Civilian control of the military is supposed to avoid the scary possibility of this cadre of fighters getting too big for their britches and calling the shots their way. Sadly, we seem to have perverted that concept to the point that they are constrained from speaking out when that civilian control is going the wrong way.

[Kagemusha]

6. See, the reason I say it's 'because I said so' is this.

The Blair government position was: the UN security council was foolish enough to half-agree to our going to war to remove Saddam from Iraq that, in the face of their failure to fully agree, we will agree to the other half on their behalf, against their consent, in order to present a unified Security Council front against Saddam's defiance of the Council and the UN and the entire international system. In doing so we are protecting the greater law, that evil must be opposed, rather than the lesser law, the minutiae of Security Council resolutions.

Therefore the legal advice was, "You are covered. Don't worry."

Because if the greater law is being supported, how could a conscientious Hague ever put anyone on trial for upholding it and waging war against bad people?

[Gman]

3. The attitude is that if we do it, it's not a war crime

that's not to far from "if the president does it, it's not illegal".