[DaveO]

Re: Iraq : Thu Jun 19, 2014 12:59 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: "Considered legal opinion" - ah yes, I remember that. IIRC in summary, it considered war on Iraq wasn't legal, but as Bliar didn't like that, he got them to change "wasn't" to "was". Goldsmith, the attorney general, told them it was legal. And it was Jack Straw as foreign secretary who was in the thick of the legal aspect of it as it was Straw who was seeking the legal opinion not Blair. In this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7078079/Chilcot-inquiry-Iraq-invasion-had-no-legal-basis-in-international-law.html You will see that Sir Michael Wood contended in 2003 it was illegal but then back in 2002 told Goldsmith earlier UN resolutions could be used so it was legal.

Ferocious Aardvark wrote: "Considered legal opinion" - ah yes, I remember that. IIRC in summary, it considered war on Iraq wasn't legal, but as Bliar didn't like that, he got them to change "wasn't" to "was". Goldsmith, the attorney general, told them it was legal. And it was Jack Straw as foreign secretary who was in the thick of the legal aspect of it as it was Straw who was seeking the legal opinion not Blair. In this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7078079/Chilcot-inquiry-Iraq-invasion-had-no-legal-basis-in-international-law.html You will see that Sir Michael Wood contended in 2003 it was illegal but then back in 2002 told Goldsmith earlier UN resolutions could be used so it was legal.

Re: Iraq : Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:08 pm  

Hmm. Well, in his testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry Goldsmith said Biar’s claims that Britain did not need a UN ­resolution explicitly authorising force were not compatible with his legal advice. In testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry, Lord Goldsmith said Mr Blair based his case for invasion on grounds that ‘did not have any application in international law’. He said he felt ‘uncomfortable’ about the way Mr Blair ignored his legal rulings when making the case to Parliament. Asked whether ‘the Prime Minister’s words were compatible with the advice you had given him’, he replied: ‘No.’ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/27/iraq.iraq2

Hmm. Well, in his testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry Goldsmith said Biar’s claims that Britain did not need a UN ­resolution explicitly authorising force were not compatible with his legal advice. In testimony to the Chilcot Inquiry, Lord Goldsmith said Mr Blair based his case for invasion on grounds that ‘did not have any application in international law’. He said he felt ‘uncomfortable’ about the way Mr Blair ignored his legal rulings when making the case to Parliament. Asked whether ‘the Prime Minister’s words were compatible with the advice you had given him’, he replied: ‘No.’ http://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/apr/27/iraq.iraq2

Re: Iraq : Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:11 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I think you overestimate what they can do.

If 500 'possibles' set off abroad they have every right to do so. On what grounds could you stop them?

Once they are abroad they are free to travel wherever they want. What if, just for one example, one of them travels to Yemen, or Kenya, and then takes a ferry or a desert road into Somalia and meets up with some rum bunch somewhere there? What do you think they could do? Send a guy with a hat and raincoat to tail each one?

And despite being in Somalia, this individual hasn't yet done anything illegal. If he then moves on to some guerilla unit which makes its way to Syria, or Iraq, or wherever, just how do you propose they establish this? Man in raincoat again?

The biggest problem is you can't track everyone who goes abroad, even ones who you suspect are off to train or fight you can't follow, and so unless you are proposing detention without charge, what, practically, could be done?

I agree (!). In addition to what you say, keeping people under surveillance is extremely labour intensive. Since the 1990 s the Security Service took on most of this responsibility from the police, which led, in my view, to better performance. But no one is perfect, as the events of 7th July 2005 showed.

Re: Iraq : Thu Jun 19, 2014 9:15 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

I think you overestimate what they can do.

If 500 'possibles' set off abroad they have every right to do so. On what grounds could you stop them?

Once they are abroad they are free to travel wherever they want. What if, just for one example, one of them travels to Yemen, or Kenya, and then takes a ferry or a desert road into Somalia and meets up with some rum bunch somewhere there? What do you think they could do? Send a guy with a hat and raincoat to tail each one?

And despite being in Somalia, this individual hasn't yet done anything illegal. If he then moves on to some guerilla unit which makes its way to Syria, or Iraq, or wherever, just how do you propose they establish this? Man in raincoat again?

The biggest problem is you can't track everyone who goes abroad, even ones who you suspect are off to train or fight you can't follow, and so unless you are proposing detention without charge, what, practically, could be done?

But its either 500 or its not, and if its 500 as quoted then someone somewhere has counted them and knows who they are, and will therefore Have their passport details - they'll know all of this because otherwise they wouldnt be able to differentiate between the 500 trainee terrorists and the couple of dozen flights full of other people which leave Heathrow for the middle east every day.

Either that or the 500 is a pile of bollax made up for the newspapers to make us think that our security people actually do something.

Re: Iraq : Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:01 pm  

I'd suppose they have a very good idea what many will be looking to get up to, and will have a varying degree of suspicion about the rest. Once they are out of the country I expect that they can try to build up a picture and a pattern with perhaps lots of little bits of information, I don't expect they will have very many easy cases at all.

Re: Iraq : Thu Jul 10, 2014 1:40 pm  

Other countries, the UN, Nato etc... will only get involved once the oil fields are threatened

Re: Iraq : Fri Jul 11, 2014 9:18 pm  

Read this morning that ISIS as well as getting 40kg of uranium my have got their hands on "chemical weapons" in Iraq. Did they find them when the US and UN couldn't!? Or did the US / UK / puppet government put them there?

Re: Iraq : Sat Jul 12, 2014 7:59 am  

Dally wrote:

Read this morning that ISIS as well as getting 40kg of uranium my have got their hands on "chemical weapons" in Iraq. Did they find them when the US and UN couldn't!? Or did the US / UK / puppet government put them there?

I was gobsmacked to hear that they also file online "accounts", apparently they are worth upwards of $2 billions. Their wealth comes from extortion, kidnap, looting etc and their expenditure includes repairs and improvements to infrastructure - something the allies seemed to have overlooked after they bombed the crap out of Iraq

Re: Iraq : Sat Jul 12, 2014 10:04 am  

cod'ead wrote:

I was gobsmacked to hear that they also file online "accounts", apparently they are worth upwards of $2 billions. Their wealth comes from extortion, kidnap, looting etc and their expenditure includes repairs and improvements to infrastructure - something the allies seemed to have overlooked after they bombed the crap out of Iraq

There was no need for any infrastructure reparation.
It was put to much better use in Rumsfeld and Haliburtons pockets.