To John

[Maquilishuat]

Hello John:

I ask your kindness to take a look on this.

The link is

www.caduceus.info/articles/denver.htm

Saludos, Maquilishuat

[Johnmcd]

Otto,
Thanks for the link. I have read it and note the contents, but I have other concerns directly related to Desert Storm and the possible use of nerve agents by either Iraqi forces or indeed US forces. No proof either way.

No matter what at this moment in time we are seeing the birth of a new democratic state, one actively sought by every free thinking Iraqi national.

Best wishes,
John.

[

[Maquilishuat]

Hello John:

This was published today in the Guardian.

It seems that another UN Resolution was needed.

Take a look.

Saludos, Otto

Revealed: the rush to war

Richard Norton-Taylor
Wednesday February 23, 2005
The Guardian

The attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, warned less than two weeks before the invasion of Iraq that military action could be ruled illegal.

The government was so concerned that it might be prosecuted it set up a team of lawyers to prepare for legal action in an international court.

And a parliamentary answer issued days before the war in the name of Lord Goldsmith - but presented by ministers as his official opinion before the crucial Commons vote - was drawn up in Downing Street, not in the attorney general's chambers.

The full picture of how the government manipulated the legal justification for war, and political pressure placed on its most senior law officer, is revealed in the Guardian today.

It appears that Lord Goldsmith never wrote an unequivocal formal legal opinion that the invasion was lawful, as demanded by Lord Boyce, chief of defence staff at the time.

The Guardian can also disclose that in her letter of resignation in protest against the war, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office, described the planned invasion of Iraq as a "crime of aggression".

She said she could not agree to military action in circumstances she described as "so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law".

Her uncompromising comments, and disclosures about Lord Goldsmith's relations with ministers in the run-up to war, appear in a book by Philippe Sands, a QC in Cherie Booth's Matrix chambers and professor of international law at University College London.

Advertiser links
Buy Xbox Games and Consoles on eBay
You'll find thousands of new and used Xbox Consoles at...

ebay.co.uk

Xbox ModChips and Hard Drive Combos - UK
Play backup games with a wide variety of mod chips,...

modchipstore.com

Consoles and Accessories, XBox Deals
Consoles and accessories, find XBox at Kelkoo, the essential...

kelkoo.co.uk
Exclusive extracts of his book Lawless World are published in today's Guardian.

Lord Goldsmith warned Tony Blair in a document on March 7 2003 that the use of force against Iraq could be illegal. It would be safer to have a second UN resolution explicitly sanctioning military action.

"So concerned was the government about the possibility of such a case that it took steps to put together a legal team to prepare for possible international litigation," writes Mr Sands.

The government has refused to publish the March 7 document. It was circulated to only a very few senior ministers. All Lord Goldsmith gave the cab inet was a later oral presentation of a parliamentary answer issued under his name on March 17.

This appears contrary to the official ministerial code, which states that the complete text of opinions by the government's law officers should be seen by the full cabinet.

On March 13 2003, Lord Goldsmith told Lord Falconer, then a Home Office minister, and Baroness Morgan, Mr Blair's director of political and government relations, that he believed an invasion would, after all, be legal without a new UN security council resolution, according to Mr Sands.

On March 17, in response to a question from Baroness Ramsay, a Labour peer, Lord Goldsmith stated that it was "plain" Iraq continued to be in material breach of UN resolution 1441.

"Plain to whom?' asks Mr Sands. It is clear, he says, that Lord Goldsmith's answer was "neither a summary nor a precis of any of the earlier advices which the attorney general had provided".

He adds: "The March 17 statement does not seem to have been accompanied by a formal and complete legal opinion or advice in the usual sense, whether written by the attorney general, or independently by a barrister retained by him".

Separately, the Guardian has learned that Lord Goldsmith told the inquiry into the use of intelligence in the run-up to war that his meeting with Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan was an informal one. He did not know whether it was officially minuted.

Lord Goldsmith also made clear he did not draw up the March 17 written parliamentary answer. They "set out my view", he told the Butler inquiry, referring to Lord Falconer and Baroness Morgan.

Yet the following day, March 18, that answer was described in the Commons order paper as the attorney general's "opinion". During the debate, influential Labour backbenchers and the Conservative frontbench said it was an important factor behind their decision to vote for war.

Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary and leader of the Commons, yesterday described the Guardian's disclosure as alarming. "It dramatically reveals the extent to which the legal opinion on the war was the product of a political process." he said.

The case for seeing the attorney general's original advice was now overwhelming, Mr Cook added. "What was served up to parliament as the view of the attorney general turned out to be the view of two of the closest aides of the prime minister," he said.

Sir Menzies Campbell, the Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman, said the government's position had been seriously undermined. "The substance of the attorney general's advice, and the process by which it was partially published, simply do not stand up to scrutiny," he said.

Sir Menzies added: "The issue is all the more serious since the government motion passed by the House of Commons on March 18 2003, endorsing military action against Iraq, was expressly based on that advice."

He continued: "The public interest, which the government claims justifies non-publication of the whole of the advice, can only be served now by the fullest disclosure."

Lord Goldsmith twice changed his view in the weeks up to the invasion. He wrote to Mr Blair on March 14 2003, saying it was "essential" that "strong evidence" existed that Iraq was still producing weapons of mass destruction.

The next day, the prime minister replied, saying: "This is to confirm it is indeed the prime minister's unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of its obligations."

The same day, Lord Boyce got the unequivocal advice he says he was after in a two-line note from the attorney gen eral's office. The extent of concern among military chiefs is reflected by Gen Sir Mike Jackson, head of the army, quoted by Peter Hennessy, professor of contemporary history at Queen Mary College, London. "I spent a good deal of time recently in the Balkans making sure Milosevic was put behind bars," said Sir Mike. "I have no intention of ending up in the next cell to him in the Hague."

Mr Sands records that Lord Goldsmith visited Washington in February 2003 when he met John Bellinger, legal adviser to the White House National Security Council. An official later told Mr Sands: "We had trouble with your attorney, we got him there eventually."

A spokeswoman for Lord Goldsmith said yesterday: "The attorney has said on many occasions he is not going to discuss process issues". The March 17 parliamentary answer was the "attorney's own answer", she said adding that he would not discuss the processes of how the document was drawn up.

The Department for Constitutional Affairs said it could not say if Lord Falconer had a role in drawing up the answer.

[Johnmcd]

Otto,
I read the article coming in on the train this morning. This is more like a biopsy, after the event anaylsis.

UN 1441 stands!

Best wishes,
John.

[Maquilishuat]

Hello John:

Things are getting worse every day. Those pesky Iraqis don't want anythin with this freedom precision delivery of yours and keep resisting. All reasons to go to this war (how many minutes were?) are nowhere to be seen. Poor people, poor soldiers. Now everyone is focusing on the rain forest; it seems that our animals and plants are more valuable than some people...

Saludos, Maquilishuat

[Johnmcd]

Hi Otto,
You must be quite bored and lonely. No worries mate we all get like that sometimes, problem is that when we are bored our mind wonders. When you last got bored you were talking about the US ( I assume) giving $200 billion to your corrupt Brazilian government for not slashing and burning the Rain Forrest. Now you are waffling on about ‘pesky’ Iraqis. Well you’ve got me there old mate! I really don’t know why they keep on blowing themselves up and killing anyone who happens to be in the vicinity. It seems the Iraqi’s don’t know either - they just do it! The coalition forces appear to be quite incidental to their suicide quest that has killed around 500 Iraqis since the new government was formed. Look, its ok by me if you want to blame Bush and Blair etc…go right ahead and fill yer boots!

Take care buddy!
Best wishe

[Maquilishuat]

Hello John!

Yes, quite boring around here.

Our present government is not specially corrupt. The guy was fairly elected and is doing a regular job. We have succeeded on expanding our trade, our agricultural production is growing (as you know the most important of all products is food), our foreign relations are improving and Mercosul is right on track.

Probably the corrupt government you are referring to was when the ousted president Collor de Mello was around. This one is not so bad.

My idea of 200 billion (per year) is quite generous to the world. This would not be capitalism, where new frontiers must exist in order for it to survive, but still a good business for everyone. I worked in the jungle for some years and i really know what is going on there, lots of people trying to do transform the land into money, just like the rest of the world did in North America, Europe and elsewhere.

Now I am preparing to go to again to Middle East.

Saludos, Otto

[Johnmcd]

Hi Otto,
The $200 billion would go miles in eliminating world debt. This is quite topical here at the moment and will be a source of much news come the during next G8 meeting. This will held in Gleneagles, Scotland 7th July.

This time, as well as the usual industrialised countries, Mexico, Brazil, India, China and South Africa have been invited to the meeting. We can expect President Fox of Mexico to attend.

Blair, who will the chair the meeting , will ask the G8 to cut 3rd world debt repayments by 100%.

In the streets of Edinburgh we can expect about a million people to demonstrate against world poverty, hunger and premature death - this time directly by demanding that all capable countries pay to ensure no one ever goes hungry again. I think this is going to work. This is why…<br>
This time the money and development funds will go direct to those most in need, bypassing the often corrupt bastards who usually steal the aid. If they get in the way, then hopefully the ‘world’ will have the moral resolve and confidence to take them out.

Once these bastards are out they then we can get on to ensure that trade justice is acknowledged and new markets are opened for the developing world.

Best wishes,
John.

[Gabriel]

Hi John,

Who is going to decide who are the "bastards"? GW perhaps? What independent entity will monitor the ethics of the conditions under wich this "aid" is provided? Halliburton?
Mercosur is doing a fine job with finding new markets without the help of the G8. What the G8 can actually do to help is to open their markets to FAIR competition and simply eliminate the interest charged on the debt. No need to go in search of corrupt politicians elsewhere in order to implement these measures. By the way, are the Malvinas goint to be used by the saviours in their "Part II" quest to convert the savages into Christianity?

Gabriel

[Sea Eagle]

Gabriel,

I agree that monitoring the benefits accrued by eliminating debt or interest is the most important aspect of this type of programme. This should not be done by the donor countries at all. It is very importnat if any scheme is to work to the benefit of ordinary people that somebody ? should make sure that the funds that are then released do not disappear into the Swiss bank accounts of African and other dictators and their henchmen.

A good start would be for the UN ? to have the power to confiscate such accounts and redistribute the money to the people it has already been stolen from to deter its continued and continuing practice.

I have been involved for a number of years in supporting small self sustaining projects in different parts of the world (NOT Christian or religious based). There is little point in throwing money at projects that simply need more money throwing at them to succeed. There needs to be a continuing benefit from sustainability and self managment without remote or indeed any supervision from donors, otherwise control does not rest with the people to whom it should really belong to.

Just handing out money or credit to already corrupt administrations and organisations is at least a 75% waste of effort. Many international organisations including the UN spend vast amounts of money on their own infrastructures, wages and transport leaving little to achieve their so called objectives.

Development and responsibilty must grow from the bottom up not from the top down otherwise time money and effort is completely wasted.

Patronising donors always expect something in return and are therefore a waste of time.

Just my different opinion based on a little experience.

Regards,

Ernie

[Gabriel]

Test

[Gabriel]

Hi Ernie,

Nice to hear from you. I agree with what you wrote. Those in need are almost always at the bottom of the totem pole. Going back to Otto's original point, the developed nations of this world have a long way to go in the process of undoing the wrongs they have done before they can point any fingers at Brasil. And even if I agree with John abot the fact that most Brasilians will never see a single cent from any money collected for the purpose of protecting Amazonas, this is an irrelevant point. When Brasil trades with a developed country, there are no conditions imposed as to the distribution of proffits in that country.

Best,

Gabriel

[Maquilishuat]

Hola Gabriel:

You touched an interesting point; the use of anything by first world countries, including trade, as a bargain. I remember the olympiads, when USSR and USA used as political coin doing embargoes. Everything purchased by countries out of the G7 are subject to several limits, constraints and responsibilities. On the other hand the G7 reserves the right to buy anything without any limit.

When Brasil intended to rent its space base in Alcantara to the US the resulting payment could not be used, get it, to our space program! Of course the deal was rejected. Now Brasil wants to buy some fighter jets (don't ask me why), but the "package" offered by several countries contains a limit on technology, even when it is stated that this is part of the bid.

Brasil wants to build a highway to the Pacific? Want to borrow some money for that? No way, this highway will destroy the wilderness of that region, so no money (you may imagine the NGO pedaling this everywhere).

Venezuela wants to buy some personal arms? No way, Jose, this could be used by the guerrillas (as if Venezuela is some sort of supermarket for these movements).

There are thousands of examples with other countries, but the formula is the same, control them.

Saludos, Otto

"When everyone is thinking the same, no one is thinking."
-John Wooden