Iraq: Chilcot Inquiry exposes the repugnant nature of behind-the-scenes decisions

Haven't blogged about anything from Chilcot before now, but the appearance of Elizabeth Wilmhurst really does merit a few thoughts.

So, what have we learned from Elizabeth Wilmhurst?

She was an incredibly powerful, impressive and composed witness throughout.

Placing a lot of eggs in Jack Straw's very fragile basket, we have learned that he - on behalf of Labour - ignored the unanimous advice of the Foreign & Commonwealth Office's legal team that war in Iraq was unlawful without a second resolution from the U.N.

Her boss, Sir Michael Wood and the whole team of legal advisers all sang from the same songbook. They all said that war would be illegal without a second resolution.

Jack Straw simply said he did not agree with that advice.

Asked whether Straw being a lawyer was a worthwhile consideration, a stone-faced and serious Ms. Wilmhurst pointed out that Jack Straw was not an international lawyer.

Jack Straw has to return to the inquiry, too.

One of the things we might consider is that we, the people pay through our taxes for legal people who work in the Foreign & Commonwealth Office and - it appears - that advice can even be ignored by Labour on a matter as serious as going to war, overthrowing a nation's Government and then occupying that nation.

And how many people have been killed - both Iraqis and British soldiers - as a result of these decisions and the ignoring of the advice being given?

Off on a tangent briefly, this has implications for the British public, too. We know what rulings have been made in the European Court of Human Rights about the legality of Labour's attacks on our civil liberties.

Labour ignores those legal rulings and continues to reign with tyranny over the British population.

Indeed, in ignoring or finding work-rounds against judgments from the ECHR, Labour demonstrate that the only place in which they will stand up to anything from Europe is when it comes to denying we, the people, our freedoms and liberties that had previously been assured for centuries.

We could question whether the signing of the Lisbon Treaty was lawful under a number of our long established laws and constitutional documents. This blog has long contended that the Declaration/Bill of Rights 1688/89 and the Treason laws could - if tested - prove the signing of the Lisbon Treaty to be, at the very least, null and void.

Back to the Iraq inquiry, Ms. Wilmhurst told us how Labour ministers kept quiet about the detail of long evolving and continual legal advice that a matter as grave as going to war would be illegal under international law.

So, something for our minds coming from the Chilcot inquiry - the conduct of Labour and it's ministers appears to be a lot murkier than the production of a dodgy dossier which was used to mislead the public and many members of Parliament.

Quite repugnant.