The legality of war
James Forsyth 3:53pm
The Cherie Blair interview in The Guardian is well worth reading and I’m sure it will be all over the news that the Blairs have not been invited to Downing Street by the Browns. But to my mind the most interesting part was when Martin Kettle pressed Cherie on the legality of the Iraq war:
"Of course, as a lawyer, I thought about it ... And like everything else, as we know from the attorney general down, there are different views about this matter. The one thing I would say, as a lawyer, is that we all know that if there had been a right answer to it in international law terms, don't you think that would have been clear? It wasn't clear. It still isn't clear.I was not advising the army and nor was I advising my husband on the law. I really am not going to get involved in a discussion about the legal position of the Iraq war. I am not the person to do that because I am not sufficiently impartial as a lawyer about this, because it's a matter that is of interest to the person that I am closest to in the world."
Cherie might not be impartial but her fundamental point is right: in contentious cases, international law is not that much use as the interpretation of it varies so greatly. Indeed, most people use international law as a proxy for morality—which it isn’t.
Revealingly, the emphasis on legality is selective. Few talk about the legality of the intervention in Kosovo, which in strict international law terms had less justification than the war in Iraq, because most people still think that Kosovo was ‘the right thing’ to do. Personally, I still think that the Iraq war was justified but one has to concede that there are many strong arguments against it. The argument about its supposed illegality, though, is one of the weakest.
Previous
Comments
A J Scott
May 17th, 2008 6:33pmWell, I suppose she is honest to the extent that lawyers will fight whatever brief they are paid to take - and in this case, as almost always, it depends whether the prosecution or the defendant gets to the Chambers door first. There must be a politer word than prostitution for this behaviour?
She is unwittingly doing us all a service in demonstrating how easily and unconscionably these shysters operate.
London Calling
May 17th, 2008 7:08pmWhilst shopping in Marks the other day
Cherie searched for the cream
That all cats prey
Shall I buy whipped or double instead?
I think the money has gone to her head.
The girls at the checkout giggled and stared
Look it’s her, Cherie bleeding Blair
Speaking for myself…..
I couldn’t really care.
But for some one who claims to be at one with God
Whose cup is filled with money and scoff
How dare she parade like the Babylonian queen?
Her robes dripped in maggots, moths and cream
For her story is shallow and stout
Its all about the money, that’s what its about.
Shall we miss the Blair King and Queen?
Who?
Oh yes…those bloody two.
Frank Pulley
May 18th, 2008 1:03amInternational law can only be effectively enforced mit eisen und blud. (Copyright Bismarck)
Those who employ the best soldiers, not the best lawyers, win.
Chuck Unsworth
May 18th, 2008 8:59amOnce again an example of the equivocation of lawyers. And interesting that a self-professed staunch Catholic finds it so difficult to comment on the rights and wrongs of the case.
Whatever happened to the moral argument?
Ray
May 18th, 2008 10:08am"I really am not going to get involved in a discussion about the legal position of the Iraq war... because it's a matter that is of interest to the person that I am closest to in the world."
Presumably, had Gordon and not Tony taken the decision to invade Iraq Cherie would by now have been accepting huge after-dinner fees to lecture us about how morally bankrupt the decision was.
ScotsToryB
May 18th, 2008 1:27pm"I really am not going to get involved in a discussion about the legal position of the Iraq war... because it's a matter that is of interest to the person that I am closest to in the world."
And there was me thinking the Attorney General took the decision.
STB.
salieri
May 18th, 2008 2:25pm'mit Blut und Eisen', actually - though I doubt whether Bismarck would have given a fig for 'International law' as we know it.
Ian C
May 18th, 2008 3:42pmFrank, I came from the Bismarck school, but there is no doubt today - and especially post April 2003 - that the television camera is now sharper than the (s)word and will be until extremely compelling circumstances take us back to Bismarck.
Alf Tupper
May 18th, 2008 8:41pmJames.
Any chance I can get an enlarged copy of the header photo on this please for over my fireplace.
It's sure to stop my kids from going close to the flames.
Frank Pulley
May 19th, 2008 12:40pmsalieri
Blut und eisen - eisen und blut?
I've seen both versions reported, but I opted for the rational one - in my experience the eisen always precedes the claret. I agree that Bismarck wouldn't have given a 'fig' for 'international law' - isn't that what he meant when he coined it? I too was implying that there is no such thing as 'international law' except as in smoke and mirrors. War inevitably settles international disputes - but even then, mostly only on a temporary basis. A man of your erudition must have inferred by now that law is for the benefit of lawyers not for the disputants. Which makes me wonder whether your penchant for Latin indicates your membership of the Society of Shysters? :-) Only kidding, you seem far too decent for that to be so.
Only today one of them must have censured my comment on the West Midlands Police thread for some curious reason. Whilst I accept the absolute right of the moderator to have his way with us punters (particularly on the advice of the legal beagle), like Verity I find the rules of the game here about as limpid as the "off-side rule" in soccer these days.
Frank Pulley
May 20th, 2008 1:19amSweet Jesus! Alf Tupper - you wouldn't subject your children to that torture would you? Not even to protect them from the flames, surely?. It would truly be cruel and unusual punishment and probably put them off cow's milk for life.