This is the memo, published online by The War in Context… and leaked yesterday by the Guardian that I pointed to last night.
You can download a capture of it here.
As the members of the meeting heard, on July 23, 2002…
The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case.
…
The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors.
Unfortunately for Blair… Saddam *did* let in Inspectors…
So, given that no UN resolution was ever obtained.. is this basis to charge Blair and Bush under International Law?
Personally, I think so… it should be considered in a court of Law at the very least.
One other thing that stands out in these minutes is this:
(emphasis added)
Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.
So apparently… according to Tony Blairs inner circle, once Bush declared “Mission Accomplished”, whatever happened after… happened.
At least now I feel truly justified in labelling George Bush Jr. and Tony Blair as the War Criminals that they so obviously are. Bush, by intent… Blair, by association.
It would be a truly just and wonderful day if we could see Saddam Hussein and George Bush standing trial simultaneously at the Hague. One for crimes against humanity and the other for disregard and ignorance of International Law.