Making Blair pay for war

On March 1st, 2003, Peter Goldsmith, the UK attorney general, wrote a brief note to Tony Blair. It was headed: "Regime-change and the use of force".

It stated:"There are three possible bases for the use of force: (a) self-defence; (b) to avert an exceptionally overwhelming humanitarian disaster or catastrophe; and (c) via a mandate from the Security Council acting under chapter VII of the UN charter.

"As you are aware none of these avenues currently suffice. Iraq poses no direct threat to the United Kingdom. At best it may threaten its neighbours, however, the overwhelming opinion is that the current sanctions and inspection regimes have sufficed since the Gulf War in order to contain Saddam hence significantly eliminating any danger of an imminent attack.

"I understand how it is being argued that terrorists may get their hands on weapons and hence become a threat. However, there must be a degree of imminence. It is important that the implications are understood before proceeding with our American partners in their doctrine for regime-change, I will be justifying what in essence may turn out to be an illegal war. However, this is why it is necessary to grey the lines as much as possible.

"As agreed I will be drafting this justification and it should be ready in one week. If we succeed in this argument, it will set the precedent for planned future conflicts that have been discussed, like Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia. I trust this will satisfy your requirements as well as those of our partners."

The document, available on the internet, seems to be more of a giveaway than the more considered and ambiguous formal advice offered on March 7th, 2003, which, on publication last week, caused all the fuss.

Here it is explicitly acknowledged there was no legal case for going to war.

Peter Goldsmith writes: "As you are aware, none of these avenues currently suffice," confirming Blair knew full well there was no legal justification.

The bit about "I will be justifying what in essence may turn out to be an illegal war" and the follow-up comment: "This is why it is necessary to grey the lines as much as possible" are extraordinary concessions that what was going on here was a strategy to invent a legal justification for the imminent war, where, in the view of the attorney general, no real justification existed, and, in order to get away with that, they would have to "grey the lines" as much as possible.

Could the gun be smoking any more clearly? They knew going to war was illegal and they set out to deceive the public, the House of Commons and, it seems, the cabinet.

The report of a privy council committee chaired by the distinguished civil servant Lord Butler was also devastating, albeit understated. It said the dossier produced by the Blair government in September 2002 on the case for war on Iraq used language that "may have left readers with the impression that there was fuller and firmer intelligence behind the judgments than was the case".

In reference to the Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC), it continued: "We conclude that it was a serious weakness that the JIC's warnings on the limitations of the intelligence underlying its judgments were not made sufficiently clear in the dossier."

In reference to the pretence that the dossier was the work of the JIC and not of Downing Street, it said: "making public that the JIC had authorship of the dossier was a mistaken judgment". And it added: "The publication of such a document in the name and with the authority of the JIC had the result that more weight was placed on the intelligence than it could bear."

So Blair both hyped up the "intelligence" that underpinned his case for war, he falsely presented a dossier as the work of the JIC, and he and his attorney general conspired to fabricate a legal justification for war. And having done all that he is about to be elected prime minister for the third time in a row with another large majority.

There may be just retribution, however.

In that March 7th, 2003, formal advice, Goldsmith acknowledged aggression against Iraq could result in criminal prosecutions either before international or domestic courts, including a possible prosecution for murder. He thought this was a remote possibility but went on: "It would not be surprising if some attempts were made to get a case of some sort off the ground. We cannot be certain they would not succeed."

Families of soldiers killed in Iraq yesterday served notice on Downing Street of their plans to take the government to court.

The court action, which is being backed by the Stop The War Coalition, will outline the group's legal case against the war under the European Convention of Human Rights.

They also plan a private prosecution against Blair. Good luck to them.