Straw denies Iraq war cover-up
 |  Straw: Entirely proper to withhold information on legality of war |
| |
|  VIDEO |
 Controversy in Britain over advice about legality of Iraq war. ITN's Gary Gibbons reports (March 24)
|
|
LONDON, England -- British Foreign Secretary Jack Straw has rejected claims of a "cover-up" after a document emerged that suggested the country's top law officer wavered about the legality of the Iraq war just before its outbreak.
But Straw on Thursday said the government stuck by its refusal to publish the legal advice given by Attorney General Lord Goldsmith despite media accusations that he changed his mind.
At first, the reports said, Goldsmith advised that the invasion could be deemed illegal without a further United Nations resolution. But later he said that it could be justified under existing U.N. resolutions.
Prime Minister Tony Blair's government has denied politically pressuring the attorney general.
The latest controversy was sparked after the Foreign Office on Wednesday published the resignation letter of Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who was the department's deputy legal adviser until shortly before the war.
In her March 18 2003 letter, made public under the Freedom of Information Act, Wilmshurst made clear she believed that the war would be illegal in the absence of a fresh U.N. resolution.
In it, she wrote of the looming U.S.-led invasion which Britain backed that "an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression." But the Foreign Office omitted two crucial sentences from the version it published.
Channel 4 News said it had obtained the missing material, and reported that the civil servant wrote: "My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office, before and after the adoption of U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, and with what the attorney general gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7th of March. The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line."
Straw told MPs Thursday it was "entirely proper" that the letter was published with two paragraphs omitted. The paragraphs were covered by exemptions from the Freedom of information Act that all parties had agreed, he said.
"Regardless of whether these references were accurate, this information was covered by exemptions in the act which apply to confidential legal advice to the formulation or development of government policy.
"It was entirely proper for the government to withhold information under the provisions of this Act.
Shadow Attorney General Dominic Grieve challenged Straw to confirm that the missing paragraphs showed that on March 7 Goldsmith believed war would be unlawful without a further resolution.
Grieve said the episode was "corrosive ... to trust in government."
On March 17, 2003, Lord Goldsmith issued a parliamentary answer setting out the legal case for the war. But there have been claims that 10 days earlier, on March 7, he presented Blair with a legal opinion in which he argued that a case could be made for war without a second resolution, but also warned that military action could be challenged in the courts.
Britain's Independent newspaper carried a headline Thursday reading: "The smoking gun?" "Was the attorney general leant on to change his mind." said an inside headline.
Said the paper in a leading article: "The public and parliament have a right to know the legal authority for the invasion. Until the prime minister offers the full facts, the questions and doubts will continue to haunt him."
The Times said that the "crisis had deepened" over the affair and said pressure may now increase on Blair to publish the March 7 letter, now considered the "full" legal opinion.
The government blacked-out the key section "not in the public interest, but in the government interest," Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrats -- who opposed the war -- told The Associated Press.
'Shocking'
Former International Development Secretary Clare Short, a bitter critic of the war, told the UK's Press Association: "I think the government had to try and cover it up because it is so devastating.
"The bit that was blacked-out shows that the attorney general changed his mind twice in a matter of days before he gave advice to the Cabinet when he just said unequivocally, 'My view is that there is legal authority for war', and kept from the Cabinet any suggestion that he had had doubts about it.
"I didn't think there was anything left that would shock me, but to have that in black and white and to know that is what he did, is really shocking."
Michael Ancram, foreign affairs spokesman for the main opposition Conservatives, called on the government to explain how Goldsmith reached his conclusion that war would be legal.
"What they have done is not to decrease the amount of doubt and mistrust that there is about the way that the government handled the run-up to the Iraq war, but actually increased it," he said. "This is damning evidence, unless it is explained."
A spokesman for the attorney general told PA: "More of the same questions about process have been raised.
"What matters is that as recently as 1 March this year, the attorney made very clear to the House of Lords that the view set out in his parliamentary answer of 17 March 2003 was his own genuinely held independent view, that military action in Iraq was lawful."
Wilmshurst, currently head of the International Law Program at the Chatham House think tank, said in a statement: "I have nothing to add to my statement of 27 February 2004.
"I left my job as a deputy legal adviser in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office because I did not agree that the use of force against Iraq was lawful, and in all the circumstances I did not want to continue as a legal adviser."
Copyright 2005 CNN. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Associated Press contributed to this report.
