You seem surprised, Im not.

They can weasel word all they like, invading a country that posed no threat to us was, is, and always will be the supreme international crime …

Craig, is the live feed available anywhere else, such as from Parliament TV or on the web, do you know? It would be most interesting to see the bits that Sky did not want to screen.

And I do wonder, given that in a busy newsroom there is probably not enough time for the necessary intellectual focus for deliberate bias, whether a particular proprietor may have had a hand in chopping the feed. Tongue in cheek apologies to our usual disrupters, of course, lest they regard that suggestion as too conspiratorial to mention ;o)

Keep going Craig. We’re onto something.

Watch it here:

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/

You can get a live feed, (well 1 min delay), off the red button from Sky News, or from the BBC website: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8479996.stm

I bet it was that Mossad agent Murdoch who cut the coverage.

all, i can say is ‘come to pappa’

let the games begin.

Craig…..game, set, match….

JS you got some explaining to do…..

Sadly yhe red button option is not available outside the UK.

Jon, I have watched hours of much less important testimony uninterrupted, and they cut away for pre-recorded stuff, not breaking news. I still might not think much of it were it not for the coincidence of the release of material attacking Wood, literally during his testimony.

Thanks, angrysoba. Looks like all the previous videos are available too, will download today’s one tonight.

@Adam: thanks, but would imagine the Sky one contains the same cutaway at a key moment that Craig refers to?

“Jon, I have watched hours of much less important testimony uninterrupted, and they cut away for pre-recorded stuff, not breaking news.”

The link I posted appears to be showing this testimony live.

Am I missing something?

I don’t know what Sir Michael Wood looks like so I Googled him and his picture came up with him wearing the same tie as he is now.

@alan-campbell: well, Murdoch is on record as wanting his papers to reflect his views, though it is said of him that he doesn’t necessarily like yes-men in editoral positions either. He’ll defer to an opposing political view in the interests of commercial interest, but in general he favours right-wing, pro-American-policy coverage. I don’t think that bit is contentious.

Mossad agent though? – not heard that one D

But Craig, the Attorney General is the government’s ultimate law adviser, not the FCO, as you well know. Goldsmith’s advice was that war was legal under the COMBINED force of 1441, 687 and 678 – not just 1441 alone.

Since the BBC and internet are bound to splash Wood’s testimony all over the place this sounds like a desperate tactic.

Someone trying to tell the truth about the Iraq war being smeared by the government?

Inconceivable!

It seems he said, “Once the attorney made the decision [about the legality or otherwise] that was the basis we had to act on.”

Eddie, Here’s a concept you may find hard to grasp:

PERHAPS GOLDSMITH WAS WRONG.

Being the ultimate legal *adviser* doesn’t make all of his legal advice automatically right.

If other, more experienced and qualified (and less politicised) advisers disagreed with Goldsmith’s opinion then that is quite an important fact.

I’ve never heard any basis for Goldsmith’s opinion, nor the way he changed his mind when required to greenlight the war. It stinks of his conclusion being predetermined and the justification for it being thought-up afterwards, which isn’t how things should work.

That wasn’t legal advice, it was an on-demand excuse for Blair & co. to go do whatever they wanted, law be damned.

@angrysoba – the internet version may be uninterrupted live feed, while the cable broadcast in the UK may have the cutaway.

Goldsmith was leant on to come to the “right” decision.

Chilcot inquiry: Iraq invasion had no ‘legal basis in international law’

The invasion of Iraq had no “legal basis in international law”, the senior government lawyer Sir Michael Wood has told the Chilcot inquiry.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7078079/Chilcot-inquiry-Iraq-invasion-had-no-legal-basis-in-international-law.html

In the unlikely event anyone is being confused by Eddie, the resident nuLab ball-cupper, here is Sir Michael’s written testimony to the inquiry: “In my opinion that use of force had not been authorized by the Security Council and had no other legal basis in international law.”

Leo/Eddie – yes, the issue of Goldsmith changing his mind on the legality of the war is central. Indeed, even if the Blairite/pro-war consensus is that Goldsmith was not swayed politically, Blair could have taken a more nuanced view, and listened to opposing views too, which were fully espoused at the time.

After all, in a fair world where a legal framework exists for war crimes, and where that can apply to any country that signs up to it, one cannot be too careful, surely?

Sir Michael said Mr Straw held a meeting with him after this but did not accept his advice.

He told the inquiry: “He took the view that I was being very dogmatic and that international law was pretty vague and that he wasn’t used to people taking such a firm position.

Sir Michael said this was “probably the first and only occasion” that a minister rejected his legal advice in this way.

Sir Michael said he did not agree with Lord Goldsmith’s statement on the eve of the invasion that Security Resolution 1441 – passed in November 2002 requiring Iraq to give up its supposed weapons of mass destruction (WMD) – together with earlier resolutions dating back to the 1991 Gulf War, provided sufficient authorisation.

Explain to me why you’re not watching it on the BBC news website? They have a direct feed, not interrupted by anything.

Don’t confuse Sky News management with control – they’re a mess anyway.

“Elizabeth Wilmshurst, Sir Michael’s deputy at the time, is also reportedly planning to tell the inquiry that the conflict was not lawful without a second United Nations resolution.

Miss Wilmshurst became the only British civil servant to quit over the war when she resigned days before the first attacks on Iraq, telling her superiors that an invasion without UN sanction would be a ”crime of aggression”. ”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/7078079/Chilcot-inquiry-Iraq-invasion-had-no-legal-basis-in-international-law.html

I repeat. The Attorney General is the government’s ultimate law adviser, not the FCO, as you well know. Goldsmith’s advice was that war was legal under the COMBINED force of 1441, 687 and 678 – not just 1441 alone. The government took the advice of the chief law officer, as they were legally obliged to do. What if it had been reversed, and the FCO said war was legal and Goldsmith said the opposite? You seem to want it all ways. All this blather about what the FCO did or dd not say is irrelevant. The FCO is a notoriously wet department that allowed genocide to take place in Serbia.

Blair rejected advice that Iraq war was illegal

By Alex Barker, Political Correspondent

The UK invasion of Iraq was illegal

In a heavy blow to Mr Blair?s case for war, Sir Michael Wood, the FCO head of legal advice, told the Iraq inquiry on Tuesday that he repeatedly warned ministers that the conflict breached international law.

Sir Michael, in his first public statements on the subject, said: ?I considered the use of force against Iraq in March 2003 was contrary to international law. In my opinion, that use of force had not been authorised by the Security Council, and had no other basis in international law.?

He added that he disagreed with Lord Goldsmith, then attorney-general, who argued on the eve of war that the existing UN resolutions on Iraq, read together, amounted to such authorisation.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c397992e-0a6f-11df-ab4a-00144feabdc0.html

guess someone needs to beef up our legal process before going to war…probably one for the lessons learned log (Prince2). Would expect their to be a work package as welll on implementing chages, and a proprer project pan as well…

me ‘white man’ always speaks with forked tongue seems to express my view of JS, TB and GB.

I just looking into the NHS on how much full spinal removal costs to the taxpayer..would seem this would be a pre-requisitie for at leats some of those posts

Iraq war illegal!!

Well that’s that then.

The whole Blair regime was nothing short of a gangster criminal conspiracy to use political power for criminal purposes.

And Blair has done mighty handsomely out of it all.

Just follow the money…

And let’s hope the Criminal Assets Recovery Agency are taking a close look at all the gangsters who’ve profited from their crimes.

I think these discussions are a little pointless. Lets for arguments sake all agree the Iraq invasion(not war, war needs 2 parties) was LEGAL. That does not mean it was RIGHT to invade a sovereign nation that posed no threat to the UK or US. Remember who makes the laws that dictate what is legal or illegal. This all seems to be focusing on the legal technicalities. The most important thing is that this was an invasion purely for Economic gains. It has left a country in ruins, millions dead and homeless, maimed etc…this inquiry is a pile of shit…everyone should just ignore it. That includes you Craig. Please stop blogging on it. The inquiry won’t change anyhting. It’s simple we all know it was wrong to invade Iraq. Who needs an inquiry. It’s boring.

Oh Hell, now they are going to sue us !

For those who would like to help see Blair brought to justice:

http://www.arrestblair.org/

@sahar – I disagree strongly. The inquiry is full of holes, sure, but it gets interesting when it meets a discontinuity to glaring that even our usually myopic media cannot hop over it. I’m not watching the feed – sadly I am at work – but this sounds like it might be one of these times.

I agree with your position on technicalities, though – one can get caught up in them to the detriment of the human impact.

Iraq Inquiry broadcast and related links can be found here http://is.gd/74CmR

War criminal changes his story:

“Last month Blair said he would have invaded Iraq even without evidence of WMD and would have found a way to justify the war to parliament and the public. In a TV interview he said he would still have thought it right to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

The Chilcot inquiry has seen a number of previously leaked Whitehall documents suggesting Blair was in favour of regime change. He is due to give evidence to the inquiry over the next few weeks.”

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jan/02/john-major-dismisses-blair-iraq

..OK one more thing. The objective was to Remove Saddam. (how did he get into power by the way) He has now gone. So why not all troops leave and let the Iraqi’a sort out their future. And don’t say for security. All the explosions we see everyday are carried out by UK and US to justify their presence. There will never be peace and security in Iraq until all foreign troops leave.

I am in Africa so I can’t watch it on the internet as the connection is below 2kbps (sic) today.

Of course the evidence isn’t unavailable – but by taking off the live newsfeed the causal audience is reduced by 95%.

“Mark Higson”…

http://www.johnpilger.com/page.asp?partid=559

@sahar

We cannot so easily assume that something is legal when the most highly qualified legal advisor in a relevant department says that it is not. The AG is a politician expected to toe the party line first of all, and therefore his opinion is not independent and liable to be swayed. Furthermore it is liable not to be as expert as career legal advisors, precisely because he has been selected for party loyalty.

Besides, here is a leaked report of a secret conversation from the Department for Adequate Public Justification before the Iraq War:

Junior: Minister, we’re in trouble. The PM managed to pressure the AG into changing his mind and toeing the party line, but the independent chief legal advisor insists that the war is illegal.

Minister: Some people just don’t know who is boss, do they? Bring the twerp in here. I’ll have a word with him.

* A Long Conversation later *

Junior: How did it go, Minister?

Minister: @#**!!! I might as well have been dealing with the Inquisition. Dogmatically sticking to his position. I tried to explain to him that International law is vague and allows us to interpret it any way we like, but no dice. The impertinent fellow told me that his duty was to give independent advice!

Junior: But Sir, you are not a qualified lawyer yourself.

Minister: Don’t you start! Not if you want to make progress here, that is. Questioning the government’s decision, are we?

Junior: No Sir, of course not.

Minister: That’s better. Besides, the PM has a law degree, and he’s with the Americans on this, so that’s that. The official advice from the government’s own lawyer, the AG, is what we want, so these “independent expert” legal @#*** advisors can b—dy well drop dead, can they not?

Junior: Yes Sir! No Sir, I mean, three bags full Sir! Er, I mean ..

Minister: Oh, get out!

Junior: Sir!

Why does this enquiry require a one minute delay on the live feed?

Can anyone enlighten me please?

“Why does this enquiry require a one minute delay on the live feed?”

I think it’s in case anyone chokes on his testimony. They have one minute to prop him up and carry on.

But they don’t make edits, do they … why DO they have a one minute delay?

Chris Ames’ Iraq Inquiry Digest site is down. Coincidence?

http://www.iraqinquirydigest.org/

“But they don’t make edits, do they … why DO they have a one minute delay?”

So that someone has time to push a ‘mute’ button if someone says something that the public isn’t supposed to hear.

At least, that was the explanation the BBC gave when it happened a few weeks ago. I forget the details, I can’t even remember if it was the same enquiry.

The time lag’s for reaction time, is the point. Explanation goes on to emphasise that of course of course of course this could only conceivably be done in extreme cases where the security of the whole nation was under threat, natch. And how could I possibly disagree, not knowing what it was in the first place ?

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, what can I say…..

what an absofuckinglutely good job

she might well have said “Jack Straw is many things but an international lawyer is not one of them”…

I’m sure tony is already applying several layers of teflon in readiness for friday’s grilling….

Here’s my understanding of the resolutions:

678: kick Iraq’s troops out of Kuwait (using “all necessary means”).

687: peace deal to end said out kicking, including that Iraq would get rid of its WMDs and allow inspections.

1441: yes, really, allow the inspections, or else we’ll talk about it or something.

I have read 678. It’s short and to the point: not much longer than my summary above. The other two are much longer and I haven’t read them.

Still, I don’t think either 687 or 1441 use the “all necessary means” phraseology which is UN code for possible application of violence.

Therefore, what I don’t understand is, even if Saddam’s supposed non-compliance with 687 or 1441 reactivated 678 (which I don’t expect they do because of the “no automaticity” comments), how that could authorize an invasion of Iraq when 678 didn’t call for that in the first place.

In an interview shortly after GW I Norman Schwartzkopf, I think it was, was asked why they didn’t carry on to Baghdad. He said:

1. Lots of people would die.

2. The UN hadn’t authorized it.

3. They thought Saddam would fall anyway.

Two out of three isn’t bad. It also confirms that that limited interpretation of 678 was clearly understood then.

I agree that the details of the legality or otherwise of the action aren’t a lot of help to the people of Iraq or much guidance as to what needs to be done now in that country or even whether the invasion was or was not right (as opposed to legal) originally. However, it is important to consider the possibility of legal proceedings against those concerned – as in most crimes taking legal action after the event won’t help the current victims but it does have an “encourage the others” effect people considering such actions in the future.

I can only then assume the one minute delay is there in case any one of these bastards actually tells the truth…

Or maybe everyone giving evidence is,ahem,wired up and if they tell some truth then the delay kicks in whilst they recieve some corrective volts through their bodies…

Eddie,

Please check the facts:

Res. 678 – Legal authorization for the Gulf war.

Res. 687 – Terms with which Iraq was to comply after losing the Gulf war.

Res. 1441 – Final opportunity to remedy the material breach of Re. 687

Res. ???? – Legal authorization for the Iraq war (missing)

Thus 678, 687, 1441 is, well 678, 687, 1441

(wiki)

Simples – pwweet

Squeal Eddie, Squeal.

2+2 does not equal 5 no matter how hard you spin it

We know it, you know it, and your masters know it.

The Iraq war was ILLEGAL.

Let the trials begin.

eddie, you’re defending the indefensible and i suspect you know it as the catalogue of lies and chaos becomes more apparent by the day at the Chilcott inquiry…

The whole process is revealed,day by day,as an utterly murderous shambles of lies on an epic scale.

“squeal eddie, squeal”. nice, mr dooley. not.

Could this then lead to the prosecution of those involved?

Does anyone know if any finding of illegality would lead to the bush administration being looked into perhaps?

I’m still confused as to what could come out of the recent events.

Sorry for the taunting, but it must be a little humiliating for eddie trying to come up with spin on this one.

I’m more than happy to see him try though.

Oh very happy

Apparently Elizabeth Wilmshurst was applauded by the public gallery when she’d finished giving her evidence.

The ordinary decent people know the truth; know the difference between right and wrong, something Blair and his gang of criminals must be one day forced to face.

In the meantime we need to destroy the party system and take parliament back to decent people and away from these evil scum who will destroy our country for theri own financial gain.

@jives: “Or maybe everyone giving evidence is,ahem,wired up and if they tell some truth then the delay kicks in whilst they recieve some corrective volts through their bodies…”

You mean like this at the Moussaoui trial -

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-2455375257869300730#

I would have liked to apply a little corrective electric shock to UKIP’s Lord Pearson, who said in his horribly refined, effete, Sloaney voice the other day, more than once without being challenged on Radio 4:

“Islam is not the same as our Judaeo-Christian tradition.”

‘I mean’ pvbppppprrrr ‘they don’t lie, like us’ pvbpppprrrr, ‘they don’t fornicate like us’ pfbppprrrrr ‘ they don’t regularly deploy weapons of mass destruction’ pfbppprrrr ‘like us. I think it’s possible there may be something possibly wrong with your microaphoane’ pfbppprrrr

Elizabeth Wilmshurst was brilliant, she did not even mention Jack Straw by name, just said thatbhe wa not an international lawyer. What a principled woman, I could almost fancy her, just for saying that, with a derisory frisson in her voice, worth an Oscar.

It?s just double standard and cheap politics. The ultimate dream is domination and profit by all means! This goes on to prove time and again that the UN-SC is not a functioning entity that is fit for purpose. Yet it has the so called legality/power to impose sanctions on nations that abide by the rule of law!