DeSPURado
09-23-2004, 03:00 AM
Sep 23 2004
Daniel Davies, The Western Mail
THE likelihood of Tony Blair standing trial before Parliament to answer charges he lied about Iraq moved a step closer yesterday, when his wife's law firm ruled there was no legal impediment to stop it.
Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers said, "There is, on the material before us, a case to answer that the Prime Minister was guilty of a serious breach of constitutional principles."
....
Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price said, "We have continuously maintained that the Prime Minister has a case to answer over his conduct in relation to the invasion of Iraq, and now we have the legal opinion to prove we were correct. <snip>
Elfyn Llwyd MP, the parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru, said, "The legal opinion we are publishing today vindicates our longstanding objection to the Prime Minister's justification for invading Iraq.
Link (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/newspolitics/tm_objectid=14673558&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=qc-cherie-s-chambers-add-weight-to-impeachment-case-for-blair-name_page.html)
The case for impeachment
There is no doubt Blair misled parliament over the war
Dan Plesch
Wednesday September 22, 2004
The Guardian
First, Tony Blair made many statements relating to the Iraq war that we now know were contradicted by the very sources - such as reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee - he claimed to rely on. The list runs to 40 pages in the report I prepared with Glen Rangwala, the WMD expert, for Adam Price.
Second, any reasonable person would conclude that some or all of his statements were misleading. Third, there is a clear constitutional standard requiring ministers to resign for such conduct.
Fourth, the pre-Iraq standard of resignation was applied to the MPs Beverley Hughes and Peter Mandelson. Hughes resigned because she forgot she had received one letter. Mandelson resigned first because he did not give proper information to his civil servants about a private loan, and again because there was a dispute about whether or not he had made a phone call to another minister. A reasonable person would conclude that the prime minister's misleading statements are far more numerous and serious than the above.
Fifth, Blair remains in office, refusing any examination of his conduct. Sixth, if he gets away with it, a new constitutional precedent will have been established, namely that misleading the country is acceptable. Seventh, constitutional authorities such as Erskine May describe how impeachment can be used as a last resort.
Guardian UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1309807,00.html)
Daniel Davies, The Western Mail
THE likelihood of Tony Blair standing trial before Parliament to answer charges he lied about Iraq moved a step closer yesterday, when his wife's law firm ruled there was no legal impediment to stop it.
Cherie Blair's Matrix Chambers said, "There is, on the material before us, a case to answer that the Prime Minister was guilty of a serious breach of constitutional principles."
....
Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price said, "We have continuously maintained that the Prime Minister has a case to answer over his conduct in relation to the invasion of Iraq, and now we have the legal opinion to prove we were correct. <snip>
Elfyn Llwyd MP, the parliamentary leader of Plaid Cymru, said, "The legal opinion we are publishing today vindicates our longstanding objection to the Prime Minister's justification for invading Iraq.
Link (http://icwales.icnetwork.co.uk/0100news/newspolitics/tm_objectid=14673558&method=full&siteid=50082&headline=qc-cherie-s-chambers-add-weight-to-impeachment-case-for-blair-name_page.html)
The case for impeachment
There is no doubt Blair misled parliament over the war
Dan Plesch
Wednesday September 22, 2004
The Guardian
First, Tony Blair made many statements relating to the Iraq war that we now know were contradicted by the very sources - such as reports from the Joint Intelligence Committee - he claimed to rely on. The list runs to 40 pages in the report I prepared with Glen Rangwala, the WMD expert, for Adam Price.
Second, any reasonable person would conclude that some or all of his statements were misleading. Third, there is a clear constitutional standard requiring ministers to resign for such conduct.
Fourth, the pre-Iraq standard of resignation was applied to the MPs Beverley Hughes and Peter Mandelson. Hughes resigned because she forgot she had received one letter. Mandelson resigned first because he did not give proper information to his civil servants about a private loan, and again because there was a dispute about whether or not he had made a phone call to another minister. A reasonable person would conclude that the prime minister's misleading statements are far more numerous and serious than the above.
Fifth, Blair remains in office, refusing any examination of his conduct. Sixth, if he gets away with it, a new constitutional precedent will have been established, namely that misleading the country is acceptable. Seventh, constitutional authorities such as Erskine May describe how impeachment can be used as a last resort.
Guardian UK (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1309807,00.html)