Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

UK: "Invasion of Iraq had no legal basis" watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So does that mean the UK military/ government violated international law?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Has this been proven yet?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Meagz)
    Has this been proven yet?
    BBC news is not a credible source? I heard it today.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    BBC news is not a credible source? I heard it today.
    But the inquiry isn't over yet, is it?




    Best possible outcome: Blair gets hanged for war crimes :ahee:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It's a claim made by a senior Foreign Office legal advisor at the Chilcot inquiry.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    BBC news is not a credible source? I heard it today.

    One (former) legal advisor to the foreign office says he considered the invasion to be unlawful. That alone does not constitute proof, the inquiry still has a way to go.

    But still, good news.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hope with all my heart they see this through and both Blair and Bush are punished for their crimes, in the same way that we would punish anybody else found guilty of them...

    I just cant see it happening though!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I hate this argument.
    Since when does war have to be legal?

    Sorry Germany about the delay, but due to an administration error, you will have to wait a further 15 weeks before you invade Russia. However, as this is a fault with our systems, we provide the gift of Czechoslovakia.

    Regards,
    Ministry of War
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lets hope that Blair and his frog faced wife are the first to enter the noose.

    Maybe send the children to Iraq to admire daddys work.

    Couldn't care less about Bush, he's the septics problem. Blair is our responsability, and we should act accordingly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Someone actually source this, or it's null and void.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chidona)
    Someone actually source this, or it's null and void.
    It's been all over every news outlet all day, but if you're really having trouble, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479996.stm
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't new. Its well known that not every lawyer working for the foreign office was in agreement. The important person is the Attorney-General, and he wrote an opinion indicating that the law was legal.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why does war have to be legal, anyway?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    And nothing will happen....
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    This isn't new. Its well known that not every lawyer working for the foreign office was in agreement. The important person is the Attorney-General, and he wrote an opinion indicating that the law was legal.
    Was he right though?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sakina101)
    Why does war have to be legal, anyway?
    There are legal, illegal, unofficial and secret wars.

    Take your pick.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What is the point of this whole inquiry. If they decide the war was unlawful a few civil servants get a slap on the wrist and no serious consequences follow. Blair wont be tried for war crimes even though he should. He is just as bad as the terrorists and dictators being tried in the Hague.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sakina101)
    Why does war have to be legal, anyway?
    Because, given the destruction and damage war causes, it should be just?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    Was he right though?
    I think he probably was. The UN has to expect that people will interpret ambiguously drafted resolutions in different ways. The whole point of international law is that it reflects international practice. It isn't like you can look it up international law in a statute like you can with other types of law.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jacketpotato)
    I think he probably was. The UN has to expect that people will interpret ambiguously drafted resolutions in different ways. The whole point of international law is that it reflects international practice. It isn't like you can look it up international law in a statute like you can with other types of law.
    So you are saying one can interpret international law any which way is more convenient at the time?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 19, 2010
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.