In Today's Times (whose website seems to have imploded) Simon Jenkins writes of the Goldsmith opinion on the legality of war in Iraq:

'His lordship was in dire straits over Iraq in the spring of 2003. Mr Blair had declared on November 8 that resolution 1441 was "not an automatic trigger point" for war. The resolution's paragraph 12 made that clear. There would have to be a return to the UN, "as we always said there would be". When Lord Goldsmith prepared his March 7 advice, he recklessly took Mr Blair's word for truth. He said that without such a return to the UN for another resolution, the war would probably be illegal.'

(My emphasis).

Now read what Lord Goldsmith actually said in his March 7 opinion. Having established that the UN Security council needed to discuss Saddam's alleged breaches, he then wrote:

'Whether a report comes to the Council under OP4 or OP11, the critical issue is what action the Council is required to take at that point. In other words, what does OP12 require. It is clear that the language of OP12 was a compromise by the US from their starting position that the Council should authorise in advance the use of all necessary means to enforce the cease-fire resolution in the event of continued violations by Iraq. It is equally clear, however, that the language does not expressly provide that a further Council decision is necessary to authorise the use of force.''

(My emphasis).

He also discussed the fact that other countries might not agree, that the language was ambiguous and that because therefore a court case might be held in which the UK might lose, a second resolution would be the safest course. However, he then said that provided there was strong factual evidence that Saddam had breached the UN resolutions:

'I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.'

(My emphasis).

So he did not say the war would probably be illegal without a second resolution. He said that if there was evidence that Saddam was in breach (which there was, in spades) it would be legal. What Goldsmith actually wrote is therefore the direct opposite of what Jenkins claims he wrote.

From this misreporting of what Goldsmith said, Jenkins claims his position is 'now untenable'. On the contrary -- it's not the Attorney's position which is untenable here.

Posted by melanie at April 29, 2005