Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

Thread: Five-page legal opinion that casts doubt on the government’s case for missile strikes against Syria

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,324
    Thanks
    447
    Thanked 120 Times in 99 Posts

    Five-page legal opinion that casts doubt on the government’s case for missile strikes against Syria

    Dapo Akande, professor of public international law and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, concluded that the government’s position was “significantly flawed”.

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-syria-strikes
    those princes have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping their promises, but who knew how to manipulate the minds of men craftily.

    Machiavelli, The Prince

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 166 Times in 130 Posts
    So many people so keen to see the country divided.

    The article in the Grauniad states....

    The summary of legal advice given by the attorney general to the prime minister outlined why the UK was permitted, in his view, under international law to take measures in the face of “overwhelming humanitarian suffering”.

    So who is the Government supposed to take legal advice from? The Attorney General or a co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (even if he is well qualified)? That's not to say that the attorney general is right, but he is the chief legal adviser to the Government.
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    13,888
    Thanks
    282
    Thanked 373 Times in 323 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by boggart View Post
    So many people so keen to see the country divided.
    It already is divided.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to lankou For This Useful Post:

    scott777 (16-04-2018)

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2015
    Posts
    1,324
    Thanks
    447
    Thanked 120 Times in 99 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by boggart View Post
    So many people so keen to see the country divided.

    The article in the Grauniad states....

    The summary of legal advice given by the attorney general to the prime minister outlined why the UK was permitted, in his view, under international law to take measures in the face of “overwhelming humanitarian suffering”.

    So who is the Government supposed to take legal advice from? The Attorney General or a co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (even if he is well qualified)? That's not to say that the attorney general is right, but he is the chief legal adviser to the Government.
    Naturally, different people will have different opinions. If the Attorney General was not the right person for the government to have as their Attorney General, I wonder how long he would remain the Attorney General.
    those princes have accomplished most who paid little heed to keeping their promises, but who knew how to manipulate the minds of men craftily.

    Machiavelli, The Prince

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Newport, South Wales
    Posts
    8,871
    Thanks
    1,392
    Thanked 1,129 Times in 930 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Quote Originally Posted by boggart View Post
    So many people so keen to see the country divided.

    The article in the Grauniad states....

    The summary of legal advice given by the attorney general to the prime minister outlined why the UK was permitted, in his view, under international law to take measures in the face of “overwhelming humanitarian suffering”.

    So who is the Government supposed to take legal advice from? The Attorney General or a co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (even if he is well qualified)? That's not to say that the attorney general is right, but he is the chief legal adviser to the Government.
    and biased. one minute it's not legal, the next it is (oh that was iraq, silly me)
    --
    "The Inland Revenue is not slow, and quite rightly, to take every advantage which is open to it under the Taxing Statutes for the purposes of depleting the taxpayer's pocket. And the taxpayer is in like manner entitled to be astute to prevent, so far as he honestly can, the depletion of his means by the Inland Revenue"

    Lord Clyde: "Ayrshire Pullman Motor Services V Inland Revenue, 1929"

  7. #6
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5,601
    Thanks
    518
    Thanked 463 Times in 398 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by johnofgwent View Post
    and biased. one minute it's not legal, the next it is (oh that was iraq, silly me)
    That is what the government has stated,it is legal if there is overwhelming humanitarian suffering,thats their story and they are sticking with it.
    17,410,742 people said LEAVE!

  8. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Posts
    1,233
    Thanks
    48
    Thanked 166 Times in 130 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by johnofgwent View Post
    and biased. one minute it's not legal, the next it is (oh that was iraq, silly me)
    The question here is the legality of it, and the government has taken legal advice from the government's legal adviser. What do you expect them to do? Ignore it and go with a Uni professor? He might be just as biased as the attorney general.

    It is then the job of parliament to hold the government, including the attorney general, to account. If it is found to be incorrect/biased, then the government should answer for that. I realise it is not perfect and can be of no use to those that have been bombed but even Blair was held to accounts (well, sort of). The problem seems to be that the whole Blair saga has jaundiced the subject.

    With Iraq, I was against going in for the 2nd time. But as Parliament had a majority to go in, then I (somewhat unwillingly) put my faith in with the elected representatives even though Hans Blix was pleading for just a wee bit more time. The real problem was that the government was not held accountable and the whole Iraq Inquiry was a sham exercise in procrastination and when it finally came to light no one seemed to be held to account. With this bombing, the "Allies" have been very clever. What are they going to be lambasted for? Blowing up a few cow sheds without any loss of life?

    The role of the UN again comes into question. If the main protagonists of any conflict (presuming they take sides if not directly involved) can veto the UN into inaction, then what is the point of it? Corbyn seems to have been looking for a UN resolution to give legitimacy to any action, but that was impossible given Russia's stance. So if the accepted arbiter cannot arbitrate, then who can? Maybe change the make up of the Security Council and bin vetoes.
    Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    is there doubt? yes. frankly, they probably didn't even do it. we'd be hearing about lab results from residue tests not just a bunch of circumstantial blather and opinion. also, if they actually used nerve agent, siria would be glassed by now. they're not, so we know they didn't. but they possibly could perhaps, so that's the whole story behind the strikes.

    jmho

  10. #9
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    50
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    besides, lots of difference between chlorine and nerve agent?

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to Blackcat For This Useful Post:

    lankou (17-04-2018)

  12. #10
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Posts
    1,354
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 158 Times in 136 Posts
    Anyone can pay a Lawyer to write a brief supporting anything - that is what Lawyers do. If Labour want to pay this guy to 'discover' that the UK acted illegally them fine - but life goes on as normal.

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 53
    Last Post: 08-04-2017, 02:31 PM
  2. Syria air strikes
    By Uncle in forum United Kingdom Politics & Political Forum
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-12-2015, 11:33 PM
  3. MPs authorise UK air strikes in Syria
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 15
    Last Post: 06-12-2015, 03:30 PM
  4. 'No majority yet' for Syria strikes
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 02-12-2015, 12:29 AM
  5. MP probe 'casts doubt on election'
    By stevectaylor in forum Political News
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 24-11-2015, 03:30 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •