War was legal, says Attorney General

Following on from Lord Butler's report into intelligence-gathering, the Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has today defended his advice to the government that the war in Iraq was legal.

A spokesperson from the Attorney General's Office said that Lord Goldsmith reaffirmed his view that the war was "lawful", despite the Butler report finding that intelligence-gathering on Iraq's WMD capability had been "seriously flawed" and that the government had re-drafted intelligence to appear "firmer and fuller" than was the case.

The Lib Dems have repeatedly called on the Attorney General to publish the legal advice he gave.

In a written answer to Parliament on March 17 2003, Lord Goldsmith told the House that the legality of military action in Iraq was qualified through the repeated failure of Saddam Hussein and his regime to comply with successive UN Security Council resolutions.

"That was his independent view at the time, and it is still his view. The government has acted in accordance with the Attorney's advice at all times," the spokesperson said today.

In the weeks preceding war in March, the Security Council determined unanimously in resolution 1441 that Saddam was in material breach of his obligations, including under resolution 687, but gave him a final opportunity to comply.

When he did not, the door for military action was opened in the Attorney General's view.

The spokesperson added: "Lord Butler's Review has seen the Attorney General's advice. His report confirms - as we have always maintained - that it was 'based on the interpretation of relevant Security Council resolutions and negotiating history in the United Nations, and not on WMD-related intelligence'. So the lawfulness of the conflict is not undermined by the failure to find WMD or by any reassessment of the intelligence."

However, critics of the war have pointed out that MPs voted in favour of military action on the basis of the intelligence picture that emerged through government channels.

The Butler review contains serious criticisms of how intelligence from inside Iraq was gathered by MI6 and then how that intelligence was presented by the Joint Intelligence Committee and the government in its September dossier.

A key criticism in the Butler report centred on Tony Blair's claim in the September dossier that Iraq could deploy WMD within 45-minutes of an order being given. Lord Butler concluded that the 45-minute claim was "eye-catching" and should not have been included.

The review found that there had been mistakes, strains and misrepresentations regarding the intelligence but no one could be singled out for blame – errors were collective and systemic.

If not an indictment asserting illegal manipulation of public opinion and Parliament, the Tory party has seized on the Butler report as evidence of flawed judgment and mendacious politics at the heart of No 10.

Responding to Mr Blair in the Commons yesterday, Tory leader Michael Howard said that while the intelligence services failed in their assessment of the Iraqi threat, their caveats, qualifications and cautions were "deliberately ignored" by Mr Blair.

He told the Commons: "When presenting his case to the country, the Prime Minister chose to leave out those caveats, qualifications and cautions. Their qualified judgements became his unqualified certainties. And the question the Prime Minister must answer today … is why?"

He added: "It is a question of credibility. I hope that we will not face another war in the foreseeable future. But if we did and this Prime Minister identified the threat, would the country believe him?

"If we did and this Prime Minister asked the country to rely on intelligence would the country have confidence in him? And if this Prime Minister said that in his judgement war was necessary would the country trust him?"

(gmcg)