Indeed, Blair set out his case along the lines you suggested in the other reply, that the authority under 678 was revived. This is the advice that Goldsmith, the UK Attorney General gave, but refused (and still refuses) to give his rationale behind his decision. I find that curious - if his case is so bombproof, as it were, why not publish his rationale? Particularly since many lawyers disagree that the resurrection of 678 is valid; for the counter arguments to Goldsmith, see, eg,
Without Goldsmith's full advice being published, I find it hard to agree that the war was lawful. (I may still think the same were he to publish the advice, of course). An unlawful action, even if it were made for the best intentions, still leaves me squirming uncomfortably.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2004-07-30 01:54 am (UTC)http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/3522807.stm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theissues/article/0,6512,913589,00.html
Without Goldsmith's full advice being published, I find it hard to agree that the war was lawful. (I may still think the same were he to publish the advice, of course). An unlawful action, even if it were made for the best intentions, still leaves me squirming uncomfortably.