|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by reconmike
1441
|
Weak....reconmike....
The points in the thread OP, now that Tenet has weighed in, necessitate a reaction in opposition that is more persuasive than the "1441" talking point.
They gambled by launching an unauthorized pre-emptive invasion. Preemption is immoral, it is also stupid and criminal, because it isn't provoked to a self defense level, raising the odds that it is an unwarranted and inexcusable aggression. Now we know that this is the case. The UN did not authorize the invasion of Iraq, it turned out not to be justified, and Mr. Bush unilaterally ordered UN weapons inspectors out of Iraq, while they were pleading for more time to complete their WMD inspections. This is the background:
Quote:
http://www.channel4.com/news/article...+of+war/253703
Attorney general's change of heart on legality of war
Last Modified: 23 Mar 2005
By: Channel 4 News
Extraordinary new light has been shed on the Attorney General's dramatic and rapid change of heart on the legality of war.
An unprecedented insight from inside the Foreign Office which backs the view that the Attorney General DID change his mind about invading Iraq -- deciding suddenly that it was legal, just when the government needed him to.
The resignation letter of a government law officer who quit on the eve of war is published -- with one key passage blanked out.
The document released by the Foreign Office -
A minute dated 18 March 2003 from Elizabeth Wilmshurst (Deputy Legal Adviser) to Michael Wood (The Legal Adviser), copied to the Private Secretary, the Private Secretary to the Permanent Under-Secretary, Alan Charlton (Director Personnel) and Andrew Patrick (Press Office):
<b>* "1. I regret that I cannot agree that it is lawful to use force against Iraq without a second Security Council resolution to revive the authorisation given in SCR 678. I do not need to set out my reasoning; you are aware of it. [blanked out section]
I cannot in conscience go along with advice - within the Office or to the public or Parliament - which asserts the legitimacy of military action without such a resolution, particularly since an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression; nor can I agree with such action in circumstances which are so detrimental to the international order and the rule of law.
* 2. I therefore need to leave the Office: my views on the legitimacy of the action in Iraq would not make it possible for me to continue my role as a Deputy Legal Adviser or my work more generally. For example in the context of the International Criminal Court, negotiations on the crime of aggression begin again this year. I am therefore discussing with Alan Charlton whether I may take approved early retirement. In case that is not possible this letter should be taken as constituting notice of my resignation.
* 3. I joined the Office in 1974. It has been a privilege to work here. I leave with very great sadness."</b>
We reveal the missing words and ask why the government didn't want you to see them.
The document was released today under the Freedom of Information Act, with the crucial paragraph - on Lord Goldsmith's changed position - censored. But Channel 4 News has the missing details.
<b>Our political correspondent Gary Gibbon reports:
A senior government lawyer says that the Foreign Office legal team thought - until just before the outbreak of war - that the Attorney General agreed with them - that war was illegal without a second UN resolution.</b>
The evidence emerged after the government decided to publish the resignation letter from the former deputy legal adviser at the foreign office - Elizabeth Wilsmhurst.
<h3>Ms Wilmshurst resigned just before the outbreak of war claiming that war without a second UN reoslution was a "crime of aggression" ...</h3>
But the government refused to release a key paragraph in the letter - Channel 4 News has obtained the missing section.
In the censored paragrapgh Ms Wilmshurst wrote:
<b>"My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this Office (the foreign office legal team office) before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the Attorney General gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)"</b>
The government said it had withheld that key paragraph in the public interest - to protect the privacy of the advice given by the attorney general.
Liberal Democrat Shadow Foreign Secretary Sir Menzies Campbell told Channel 4 News: "The government didn't withhold it in the public interest, it withheld it in the government's interest."
Elizabeth Wilmshurst's resignation letter appears to support a serious and persistent charge against the government - that the Attorney General's legal advice changed dramatically and rapidly just when the government desperately needed it to.
As efforts to get a second resolution were flagging - On 7 March - lord Goldsmith produced a lengthy legal opinion arguing that a case could be made for war without a second reoslution - but - he warned - it could be seriously open to legal challenge.
On 13th March he told ministers war without a second UN resolution was legal - no question.
Former Labour Minister Clare Short, who resigned over the issue of the Iraq war told Channel 4 News: "I think the government had to cover it up because it was so devastating."
The attorney general's office said it would not comment further on Lord Goldsmith's decision making process.
Today also saw the government's formal response to Lord Butler's inquiry into intelligence on Iraq.
The government reveals the intelligence services have been shaken up with more resources, better checking of sources and more sharing of information between different branches of intelligence.
But there's still been no formal investigation into the political and legal path to war and tonight the government's version of events is yet again being seriously challenged.
|
Quote:
http://foisa.blogspot.com/2005_04_01_archive.html
http://www.channel4.com/news/article...cuments/107545
Wednesday, April 27, 2005
Attorney General's Advice Published: Full text of leaked document
Channel 4 has obtained a copy of the summary of the Attorney General's advice that was presented to Tony Blair on 7 March 2003, two weeks before the invasion of Iraq.
* Update - 28 April 2005: full 13-page text of legal advice - 693kb (pdf)
The summary extract reads as follows:
EXTRACT FROM MINUTE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
TO THE BRITISH PRIME MINISTER, 7 MARCH 2003
"Summary
26. To sum up, the language of resolution 1441 leaves the position unclear and the statements made on adoption of the resolution suggest that there were differences of view within the Council as to the legal effect of the resolution. Arguments can be made on both sides. A key question is whether there is in truth a need for an assessment of whether Iraq's conduct constitutes a failure to take the final opportunity or has constituted a failure fully to cooperate within the meaning of OP4 such that the basis of the cease-fire is destroyed. If an assessment is needed of that situation, it would be for the Council to make it. A narrow textual reading of the resolution suggests that sort of assessment is not needed, because the Council has predetermined the issue. Public statements, on the other hand, say otherwise.
27. In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force. [...] The key point is that it should establish that the Council has concluded that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity offered by resolution 1441, as in the draft which has already been tabled.
28. Nevertheless, having regard to the information on the negotiating history which I have been given and to the arguments of the US Administration which I heard in Washington, I accept that a reasonable case can be made that resolution 1441 is capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in 678 without a further resolution.
<b>29. However, the argument that resolution 1441 alone has revived the authorisation to use force in resolution 678 will only be sustainable if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation. Given the structure of the resolution as a whole, the views of UNMOVIC and the IAEA will be highly significant in this respect. In the light of the latest reporting by UNMOVIC, you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non- compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling to justify the conclusion that Iraq has failed to take its final opportunity.</b>
30. In reaching my conclusion, I have taken account of the fact that on a number of previous occasions, including in relation to Operation Desert Fox in December 1998 and Kosovo in 1999, UK forces have participated in military action on the basis of advice from my predecessors that the legality of the action under international law was no more than reasonably arguable. But a "reasonable case" does not mean that if the matter ever came before a court I would be confident that the court would agree with the view. I judge that, having regard to the arguments on both sides, and considering the resolution as a whole in the light of the statements made on adoption and subsequently, a court might well conclude that OPs 4 and 12 do requ1re a further Council decision in order to revive the authorisation in resolution 678. But equally I consider that the counter view can be reasonably maintained. However, it must be recognised that on previous occasions when military action was taken on the basis of a reasonably arguable case, the degree
of public and Parliamentary scrutiny of the legal issue was nothing as great as it is today.
31. The analysis set out above applies whether a second resolution fails to be adopted because of a lack of votes or because it is vetoed. As I have said before, I do not believe that there is any basis in law for arguing that there is an implied condition of reasonableness which can be read into the power of veto conferred on the permanent members of the Security Council by the UN Charter. So there are no grounds for arguing that an "unreasonable veto" would entitle us to proceed on the basis of a presumed Security Council authorisation. In any event, if the majority of world opinion remains opposed to military action, it is likely to be difficult on the facts to categorise a French veto as "unreasonable". The legal analysis may, however, be affected by the course of events over the next week or so, eg the discussions on the draft second resolution. If we fail to achieve the adoption of a second resolution we would need to consider urgently at that stage the strength of our legal case in the light of circumstances at the time.
Possible consequences of acting without a second resolution
[...]"
|
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story...471932,00.html
Blix insists there was no firm weapons evidence
Ewen MacAskill, diplomatic editor
Thursday April 28, 2005
The Guardian
The head of the United Nations weapons inspectors in the run-up to the Iraq war, Hans Blix, last night undercut one of the main grounds offered by the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, in his legal advice to Tony Blair.
Lord Goldsmith said there would have to be evidence that Iraq was not complying with the inspectors.
But Mr Blix, who has since retired to Sweden, said his inspectors found no compelling evidence that Iraq had a hidden arsenal or was blocking the work of the inspectors. He said there had been only small infractions by Iraq.
"We did express ourselves in dry terms but there was no mistake about the content," he said. "One cannot say there was compelling evidence. Iraq was guilty only of small infractions. The government should have re-evaluated its assessment in the light of what the inspectors found.
"We reported consistently that we found no weapons of mass destruction and I carried out inspections at sites given to us by US and British intelligence and not found anything."
In a key passage in the legal advice written by Lord Goldsmith on March 7 2003, the attorney general said that UN resolution 1441 could only be sustainable as a justification for war "if there are strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq has failed to take the final opportunity. In other words, we would need to be able to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-cooperation."
He said the views of Unmovic, the UN inspectorate body, and the International Atomic Energy Agency, the UN nuclear watchdog, will be "highly significant" and "you will need to consider very carefully whether the evidence of non-cooperation and non-compliance by Iraq is sufficiently compelling".
Mr Blix and his team returned to Iraq in December 2002 after a four-year absence and remained until the week before war began in March 2003. More than 200 inspectors crisscrossed Iraq, checking out possible sites for the production or stockpiling of weapons of mass destruction: chemical, biological or nuclear.
Mr Blix's first monthly report to the UN security council in January was mainly negative about the Iraqi government, complaining about lack of cooperation. A month later he adopted a more neutral stance, pointing out some infringements but finding no significant stockpiles.
On March 7, the day Lord Goldsmith drew up his report, Mr Blix gave his final report and this was the most favourable yet from Iraq's point of view.
Asked if this final report amounted to the compelling evidence that Lord Goldsmith considered crucial, Mr Blix said: "One cannot say so. There were infractions, you can say. In March, they (the Iraqis) cooperated like hell. They were pro-active. In December and January, no. That is why I gave a critical account on January 27. In February, it was more balanced."
On March 7, Mr Blix pleaded for more time to complete his mission and reported that lethal weapons such as Samoud 2 missiles were being destroyed.
Mr Blix said last night: "The things found were all small things. We found dozens of munitions for chemical weapons. They were empty and in a site declared. In relation to Samoud that went beyond 150 kilometres, they (the US and Britain) said it was beyond the permitted limit but I did not feel particularly indignant about that."
On the same day, the head of the IAEA, Mohamed ElBaradei, reported that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein had any nuclear weapons or was in the process of acquiring them. Mr Blix said: "By then, Mohamed ElBaradei revealed that Niger was not authentic." British intelligence falsely claimed Iraq had been trying to acquire uranium from Niger.
Mr Blix said Mr ElBaradei had also challenged US claims that aluminium tubes found were for WMD purposes. Mr Blix himself also expressed scepticism to the US secretary of state, Colin Powell, about alleged evidence of WMD.
The Iraq Survey Group, set up by the US to search for WMD, found none.
In Britain, inquiries into the route to war have been held by MPs, Lord Hutton and Lord Butler. The intelligence service was criticised for not re-evaluating its assessments in the light of Mr Blix's reports.
|
Quote:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/relea...0030316-3.html
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
March 16, 2003
President Bush: Monday "Moment of Truth" for World on Iraq
Press Availability with President Bush, Prime Minister Blair, President Aznar, and Prime Minister Barroso - the Azores, Portugal
....... PRESIDENT BUSH: That being my answer --
Q Regardless of whether the resolution goes up or down or gets withdrawn, it seems to me you're going to be facing a moment of truth. And given that you've already said you don't think there's very much chance Saddam Hussein is going to disarm, and given that you say you don't think there's very much chance he's going to go to go into exile, aren't we going to war?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Tomorrow is the day that we will determine whether or not diplomacy can work. And we sat and visited about this issue, about how best to spend our time between now and tomorrow. And as Prime Minister Blair said, we'll be working the phones and talking to our partners and talking to those who may now clearly understand the objective, and we'll see how it goes tomorrow.
Saddam Hussein can leave the country, if he's interested in peace. You see, the decision is his to make. And it's been his to make all along as to whether or not there's the use of the military. He got to decide whether he was going to disarm, and he didn't. He can decide whether he wants to leave the country. These are his decisions to make. And thus far he has made bad decisions.
Q I understand that if tomorrow is the day for taking the final decision, that means that you consider that there's no possible way out through the United Nations because a majority does not support a war action. I would like to know, Mr. Blair, Mr. Bush, whether in that military offensive you count on many countries, whether it's going to be the UK and the U.S. carrying out the military offensive? I understand from what Mr. Blair that you're counting on the U.N. for the reconstruction. Are you going to look for other countries through the United Nations?
And for Mr. Aznar, what is Spain's participation in that military offensive, in addition to your political support?
PRESIDENT BUSH: Resolution 1441, which was unanimously approved, that said Saddam Hussein would unconditionally disarm, and if he didn't, there would be serious consequences. The United Nations Security Council looked at the issue four and a half months ago and voted unanimously to say: Disarm immediately and unconditionally, and if you don't, there are going to be serious consequences. The world has spoken. And it did it in a unified voice.
Sorry. .........
|
Quote:
http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/38604/
Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes?
By Jan Frel, AlterNet. Posted July 10, 2006.
<i>A Nuremberg chief prosecutor says there is a case for trying Bush for the 'supreme crime against humanity, an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation.'</i>
Most Americans firmly believe there is nothing the United States or its political leadership could possibly do that could equate to the crimes of Hitler's Third Reich. The Nazis are our "gold standard of evil," as author John Dolan once put it.
But the truth is that we can, and we have -- most recently and significantly in Iraq. Perhaps no person on the planet is better equipped to identify and describe our crimes in Iraq than Benjamin Ferencz, a former chief prosecutor of the Nuremberg Trials who successfully convicted 22 Nazi officers for their work in orchestrating death squads that killed more than one million people in the famous Einsatzgruppen Case. Ferencz, now 87, has gone on to become a founding father of the basis behind international law regarding war crimes, and his essays and legal work drawing from the Nuremberg trials and later the commission that established the International Criminal Court remain a lasting influence in that realm.
Ferencz's biggest contribution to the war crimes field is his assertion that an unprovoked or "aggressive" war is the highest crime against mankind. It was the decision to invade Iraq in 2003 that made possible the horrors of Abu Ghraib, the destruction of Fallouja and Ramadi, the tens of thousands of Iraqi deaths, civilian massacres like Haditha, and on and on. Ferencz believes that a "prima facie case can be made that the United States is guilty of the supreme crime against humanity, that being an illegal war of aggression against a sovereign nation."
Interviewed from his home in New York, Ferencz laid out a simple summary of the case:
"The <a href="http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/">United Nations charter</a> has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."
It's that simple. Ferencz called the invasion a "clear breach of law," and dismissed the Bush administration's legal defense that previous U.N. Security Council resolutions dating back to the first Gulf War justified an invasion in 2003. <h3>Ferencz notes that the first Bush president believed that the United States didn't have a U.N. mandate to go into Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein; that authorization was simply to eject Hussein from Kuwait. Ferencz asked, "So how do we get authorization more than a decade later to finish the job? The arguments made to defend this are not persuasive."</h3>
Writing for the United Kingdom's Guardian, shortly before the 2003 invasion, international law expert Mark Littman echoed Ferencz: "The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorized by a new and unambiguous resolution of the Security Council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defense or authorized by the Security Council.".....
Quote:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...910882,00.html
A supreme international crime
Any member of a government backing an aggressive war will be open to prosecution
Mark Littman
Monday March 10, 2003
The Guardian
The threatened war against Iraq will be a breach of the United Nations Charter and hence of international law unless it is authorised by a new and unambiguous resolution of the security council. The Charter is clear. No such war is permitted unless it is in self-defence or authorised by the security council.
Self-defence has no application here. Neither the United States nor the UK, nor any of their allies, is under attack or any threat of immediate attack by Iraq......
|
|
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...nce-iraq_x.htm
Posted 3/17/2003 5:12 AM Updated 3/17/2003 9:38 AM
France calls emergency U.N. meeting Tuesday
United States and its allies for the United Nations to authorize war against Baghdad.
Ending weeks of silence on the issue, Russian President Vladimir Putin condemned military action against Iraq, saying Monday that war would be a mistake that could imperil world security. His foreign minister, Igor Ivanov, was flying to New York for Tuesday's Security Council session, news reports say.
Putin's comments came as U.N. chief weapons inspector Hans Blix was preparing to give the council a 30-page report Monday listing about a dozen key remaining disarmament tasks that Iraq should complete in the coming months.
It appeared almost certain that a U.S.-led war would have to go ahead without U.N. authorization because the 15-member council remains bitterly divided and no acceptable compromise is on the table.
President Bush made it clear after a summit in the Azores Sunday with allies Britain, Spain and Portugal that diplomatic efforts would end by Monday night, but he did not make clear what the next steps would be.
Late Sunday evening, the Security Council scheduled closed consultations on Iraq at 10 a.m. ET Monday to discuss the resolution sponsored by the United States, Britain and Spain setting an ultimatum for Iraq to rid itself of weapons on mass destruction within days or face war. The current resolution would set the deadline for Monday, but U.S. officials said that could be extended briefly.
Washington could call for a vote, but the resolution doesn't have the support of a majority of the 15 council members and faces a threatened veto by France, and possibly Russia. At the summit, the co-sponsors didn't offer any new "carrots" to try to win over opponents, and no major shifts in the positions of council members were expected.
In Moscow, a top diplomat said the council would not approve the U.S.-backed resolution. "This draft has no chances for passage," Deputy Foreign Minister Yuri Fedotov told Interfax news agency. "No additional resolutions are necessary."
For weeks, Putin has been silent on Iraq. He deliberately seemed to be seeking to avoid opposing Washington even as the Russian Foreign Ministry battered home the message that Russia would join France in opposing any U.N. resolution that automatically authorized force.
"We are for solving the problem exclusively by peaceful means," Putin was quoted as saying by the Interfax news agency. He said Russia's position was clear, comprehensible and unwavering.
"Any other development would be a mistake — fraught with the toughest consequences, leading to victims and destabilization of the international situation as a whole," Putin told Chechen spiritual leaders, according to Interfax.
French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin said Monday that France cannot accept a second U.N. resolution that includes an ultimatum or resorts to automatic use of force to disarm Iraq. Speaking to Europe-1 radio, de Villepin reiterated France's threat to use its veto in the Security Council to block a resolution that paves the way to war.
The other option would be to abandon the resolution, which diplomats say might be the smarter thing to do from a legal point of view.
If the resolution is defeated, an attack against Iraq would violate international law. But if there is no vote, the legal status of a war falls into a gray area where the United States and Britain would likely claim they already have authority to attack under previous U.N. resolutions — and other council nations would argue that they don't.
Prime Minister Tony Blair said Sunday that British diplomats would work through the night to try to persuade France to reverse course. Asked what would happen if Paris continues to threaten a veto, Blair appeared pessimistic about the chances of avoiding military action.
"It's very difficult to see how you can change that position," he told reporters during his flight home from the Azores.
French diplomats at the United Nations said the country's position had not changed, and it remains on the same track — in favor of continued inspections because they are working and opposed to any U.N. resolution authorizing military force.
For that reason, French diplomats on Sunday pressed for a Security Council meeting at 3 p.m. ET Monday to discuss a joint declaration by France, Russia and Germany calling for foreign ministers from the 15 council nations to meet Tuesday to discuss a "realistic" timetable for Saddam Hussein to disarm.
The declaration, released Saturday, said there was no justification for a war on Iraq and that U.N. weapons inspections were working.
French President Jacques Chirac said Sunday he was willing to accept a one-month or two-month deadline for Iraq to disarm, provided the move was endorsed by the chief U.N. weapons inspectors. But U.S. officials dismissed the idea as a nonstarter and Germany opposed it, saying it wanted no ultimatum.
German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder said he would continue to fight for peaceful disarmament.
"I think it is always worth it — even in the last minute — to push for peace and to fight for a peaceful disarmament," Schroeder told German television ZDF late Sunday.
Vice President Dick Cheney dismissed the French proposal, saying "it's difficult to take the French seriously."
As war inched closer, the United States advised the United Nations to withdraw its inspectors from Baghdad, countries closed their embassies and foreign journalists left the country Monday.
|
Quote:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/i...ors-iraq_x.htm
Posted 3/17/2003 5:40 AM Updated 3/17/2003 1:16 PM
U.S advises weapons inspectors to leave Iraq
VIENNA, Austria (AP) — In the clearest sign yet that war with Iraq is imminent, the United States has advised U.N. weapons inspectors to begin pulling out of Baghdad, the U.N. nuclear agency chief said Monday.....
.....ElBaradei, who has been monitoring the situation day to day, also confirmed that he and Blix had received an invitation from Baghdad "to visit Iraq with a view toward accelerating the implementation of our respective mandates." He did not say whether he or Blix had accepted.
"I should note that in recent weeks, possibly as a result of increasing pressure by the international community, Iraq has been more forthcoming in its cooperation with the IAEA," he said, adding that inspectors still have found no evidence that Saddam Hussein has revived his nuclear program.
But with the United States, Britain and Spain making clear that Monday would be the final day for diplomatic efforts to avert a conflict, it appeared that the inspectors were running out of time and could begin withdrawing at any moment.
In other signs that war could be imminent, the U.S. State Department on Sunday night ordered nonessential personnel and all family members to leave Israel, Kuwait and Syria in a precautionary move. .......
|
Quote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/mid...st/3661134.stm
Last Updated: Thursday, 16 September, 2004, 09:21 GMT 10:21 UK
Iraq war illegal, says Annan
The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.
He said the decision to take action in Iraq should have been made by the Security Council, not unilaterally.
The UK government responded by saying the attorney-general made the "legal basis... clear at the time".
Mr Annan also warned security in Iraq must considerably improve if credible elections are to be held in January.
The UN chief said in an interview with the BBC World Service that "painful lessons" had been learnt since the war in Iraq.
"Lessons for the US, the UN and other member states. I think in the end everybody's concluded it's best to work together with our allies and through the UN," he said.
'Valid'
"I hope we do not see another Iraq-type operation for a long time - without UN approval and much broader support from the international community," he added.
He said he believed there should have been a second UN resolution following Iraq's failure to comply over weapons inspections.
And it should have been up to the Security Council to approve or determine the consequences, he added.
When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal, he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Mr Annan's comments provoked angry suggestions from a former Bush administration aide that they were timed to influence the US November election.
"I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC.
"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."
A UK foreign office spokeswoman said: "The Attorney-General made the government's position on the legal basis for the use of military force in Iraq clear at the time".
Australian Prime Minister John Howard also rejected Mr Annan's remarks, saying the legal advice he was given was "entirely valid".
The BBC's Susannah Price at UN headquarters in New York says Mr Annan has made similar comments before.
He has said from the beginning the invasion did not conform with the UN charter - phrasing that was seen as a diplomatic way of saying the war was illegal.
Our correspondent says Mr Annan's relationship with the US might be made a little uncomfortable for a while following his comments, but both sides are likely to want to play it down.....
|
|