Straw man?

toco

Straw should be brought to book by a judicial process for his wilful manipulation and gross misinterpretation of the legal system.Perhaps others such as Blair and the hapless Brown should also be brought to book but at least we can hear what they have to say.Straw's chance of candour has come and gone.As a self professed lawyer himself perhaps his governing body should also look into the matter.

TrevorsDen

Elizabeth Wilmshurst came out with a 'he would say that wouldn't he' sort of moment when she witheringly put down Straws credentials for international law.

I do think she rather shot herself in the foot though by agreeing that there wee no courts to judge international law - whatever that was anyway.

Perhaps we need another enquiry into how self serving the witnesses to this enquiry have been ...

Scary Biscuits

Doesn't it also speak volumes about the low quality of Labour ministers and New Labour's habit of viewing them as sinecures rather than real jobs. Exhibit 1: an Atorney General who has a second rate lawyer like Straw teaching him English. I feel ashamed.

English Pensioner

Tony Blair gave up our EU rebate on the basis that the French would CONSIDER changing their agricultural policy.
Now we know!

johno

Its a fair while since I took the trouble to read the text of 1441, and, importantly, the statements made by UN ambassadors for various countries after the resolution had been passed. My recollection is that all those who spoke, including the UK representative, but excluding Negroponte of the US, accepted that there was no "automaticity" - ie that the matter would have to be considered further before military steps were taken. In the context of the Security Council, that could only mean that the UN would have to pass a further resolution. That was what the big debate was about - the UK and US wanted an automatic engagement of the military option if Iraq was thought to be failing to comply. They lost that battle inn the UN. However, Negroponte explicitly rejected this analysis in his statement. He said that the US expressly reserved the right to take unilateral measures against Iraq if it considered that to be in the national interest. i.e f**k the Security Council, we don't care. But the UK - Sir Jeremy Greenstock I think - expressly accepted that there was no automaticity.
Jack Straw was and is re-writing history. He never was much of a lawyer - other than of the barrack-romm variety.

2trueblue

The high handed fashion in which they have all behaved is soul destroying. The fact they have got away with it shows us that they are above the law in every sense and hold us all in contempt.

General Zod

Ignoring the moral case, my respect for Straw has increased significantly. He writes a bloody good put-down letter.

Paddy

It says everything about this government. They have manipulated and lied and ruined everything that was good about Britain.

Jack Straw thought it was highly amusing when he was giving evidence last week. I hope there weren't too many mothers who had lost sons watching.

denverthen

Haha. Yes. Superior lying by that Straw man.

Number7

Hold the front page!!!

"Labour politician found out in a lie"

Methinks it's not even a "Stop Press".

(Hopefully just a sub-note in the Obituary Column)

Chuck Unsworth

@ General Zod

Actually the letter was almost certainly drafted, if not written, by Simon McDonald. Although it was 'approved', Straw would hardly leave his fingerprints anywhere, would he? It's about deniability, after all. As to 'bloody good', no, I think others could possibly do better.

Holly ......

Clarke the big beast v Mandelson.
Clarke was very polite.
Keeping quiet while Mandelson spoke,
shutting up when John called for a 'truce'.
Mandelson got his ton of bull shit across very well.
Patting Clarke on the arm like a fuddled old uncle,out on a visit from the care home
Mandy giggling, as if to say,"Bless him, he does say some funny stuff".
Why the Conservatives give Labour oxygen is a mystery.
The only saving grace for the Conservatives is,the British public are not as dense as Labour believe we are.
Many will have seen through slimeball Mandy and his rubbish,many on the other hand may not.

Ivy Eileen

Straw is a total politician - and he either leaves a paper trail (such as this letter) to provide safe cover or Macavity-like wasn't around in any meaningful way(a "cipher amid titanic events").

His Wikipedia entry says he practised (whenever that was) as a criminal lawyer. If so, he couldn't know much about international law ... but would have dealt with splitting hairs and definitions without a difference (ignoring that "the context is all"). I suggest Goldsmith found himself outmanoeuvred by the politicians, such as this guy.

Look at his photograph on his Parliamentary website - smug doesn't do it justice (sorry about use of that word!). The thought that this man is Lord High Chancellor of Great Britain and follows in the footsteps of the likes of Herschell, Birkenhead and Mackay is sick making.

Michael Booth

@johno

give a marxist an airbrush and watch history disappear in the blink of an eye - give him a word processer and it will be re-written just as quickly. Don't forget Straw heads the NuLabour 'Minitru' though he wouldn't know what justice was if it bit him. A justice minister who ignores legal advice - beyond parody.

Battle 2807

And what about this business of Dr Kelly's records remaining secret for SEVENTY YEARS???
Is this not news? Why is there not an outcry? Surely something smells appalling here?

anne allan

I can remember Jack Straw as a revolting student leader. I remember him as Barbara Castle's dogsbody. He seems to have been in Parliament ever since.
When, actually, did he work as a lawyer?

Boudicca

There's obviously a reason why Straw and Labour in general like our immigrant Muslim brethren to communicate in their own languages and not bother with the tiresom business of learning English - it's so they cannot understand the duplicity and lies Straw and the rest of Cabinet purpertrated onthe run-up to the Iraq war so they will (hopefully) still vote Labour like the good little welfare recipients/voters Labour wanted.

David Blake

Straw's argument is total rubbish. The resolution did not say that a second resolution was required for action. But in the absence of a second resolution, it gave no guidance what to do. So there was no UN authorisation for the action which the UK and US took. Goldsmith is right. The first resolution did not ban force any more than it banned mass murder. In the dictionaries I have consulted, that would not count as authorisation for mass murder.
Straw's snivelling performance last week was all of a piece with the behaviour of the whole political class in this affair. Swaggering before, saying "Blair made me do it" now.

pete-s

Wood said that Straw got the same view, the war was illegal, from all the F.O. lawyers, 27 to 0 majority.

Straw said the day before, the opinions were inconclusive. Do I spot a big porky pie?

Rob

>>Straw should be brought to book by a judicial process for his wilful manipulation and gross misinterpretation of the legal system.

I can't stand Jack Straw but you are evidently so hysterical with rage you're not even making sense. What 'wilful manipulation' & 'gross misinterpretation' exactly?

Straw is RIGHT in what he says. Resolution 1441 did indeed give the US & its allies 'wiggle-room' in determining whether to continue with laughably ineffectual 'sanctions' or to take military action. Granted, 1441 doesn't explicitly say you can use force but unfortunately for your argument it also doesn't say that you CAN'T. This is where you & all the others baying for Blair's blood run up against a brick wall. You can't win.

Chris lancashire

The telling post in all this for me is Paddy. Imagine for a moment that your much loved son or daughter died in Iraq for this shifty, snidy professional politician busy splitting hairs with an equally backsliding little sh*t.
If it were my family I would not rest until the unworthy little Straw was removed from office - as he ought to be.

Norman Dee

I wish people would stop calling for "justice", and criminal proceedings, it just causes more frustration, because we all know, and there can be no doubt that all these lying bastards are going to wander off into the sunset clutching their gold plated pensions, and their directorships, complete with an almighty sneer on their faces, because based on the "setting the precedent" rule, the Conservatives will do nothing that might comeback and bite them on the arse at the end of their term.

Percy

I don't know much, but I do know that Straw is a class A shit, always has been, always will be.

Geoff

Holly,

I agree. What got my goat was Snow allowing Mandelson to interupt & sledge Clarke - even joining in sometimes whilst giving Mandelson a clear pitch. Quite clearly biased refereeing; disgraceful. When asked an awkward question all Mandelson said was I'm sorry I'm going to make my point and was allowed to waffle but not answer the question. Jon Snow was useless useless useless as a moderator. He's a tame propagandist for Zanulabour.

SEBHFUAR

Can we expect to see a raft of rapidly introduced "Berlusconi" laws to prohibit the retrospective prosecution of ex-members of cabinet? I'm sure James "call me Jack" Straw can find some wriggle-room to bring them in without needing full consent.

SEBHFUAR

John Moss

I wonder what Blair said to Duncan-Smith and Kennedy when he briefed them on Privy Coucil terms? Shame we will never find out.

JohnAnt

So Straw is claiming that having allegations of material breach 'considered' by the Security Council just means they'd get together and chat about it over a latte, without 'deciding' anything?
While someone somewhere would feel free to do the 'deciding' and attack Iraq regardless of what the Security Council's 'consideration' produced?
If Straw is so sure of this interpretation, can he produce anyone else at the Security Council or indeed at the legal team of the UN (besides the US) who would agree that was meant?
My guess is that France thought that with the word 'consider' they thought the opposite: that they were kicking any planned attack on Iraq into the long grass, as it would need not simply a rubber stamp but a 'consideration' by the SC.
Straw's interpretation seems devious, to say the very least.

toco

Rob
I suggest you buy a dictionary as you clearly have difficulty understanding the basics of the English language.Also try and get out occasionally as it will do you lots of good.