Lord Goldsmith has come out of his election purdah to claim his advice was all his own thinking. No heavy-handed shoulder-tapping was involved to get a re-write. Well, OK. But he has no real answers for why he went from doubting the legality of war to complete certainty that battle could commence.
10 days of mind-changing evolution. Did it involve pill-taking?
One interesting piece from his 7th March advice is paragraph 23. About the French. Goldsmith was "impressed by the strength and sincerity of the views of the US Administration which I heard in Washington..." The French are painted as providing little hard evidence of their views. What I find odd is that the French were known to have views which were against pre-emptive, non-UN backed warfare. Surely, under oath in a court and being examined thoroughly by counsel, a pattern of opinion-forming would emerge. Unless all who were called to support the French view were discredited as unreliable witnesses, the court would quickly realise that the 2nd Resolution was indeed what the French were seeking, and not just "further discussion and no more".
Legal opinions are just that. If the matter of legality had ever, or will ever, be tested, only the facts and evidence will prove the point. Lord Goldsmith is now known for providing the view, in paragraph 27, that the safest legal course would be the securing of a 2nd Resolution. What changed his mind?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/28_04_05_attorney_general.pdf
The gradual introduction of a ban on buying tobacco products
-
The results of my consultation showed little interest in the topic, with
just 12 against and 6 in favour. It has not been a subject coming up in
doorstep...
5 hours ago
.jpg)
0 comments:
Post a Comment