It is not too great an exaggeration to say that the current state of murder, mayhem, violence and destruction in the Middle East may be attributed to the decisions taken by two men. Both were world leaders at the time of their joint decision. That decision has left thousands dead with many more thousands wounded, horribly scarred mentally and physically and struggling to pursue some kind of life, while millions of men, women and children have become homeless, stateless refugees.
More than 7 years after Gordon Brown first announced that a public Inquiry would be conducted to identify lessons that could be learned from the Iraq conflict, the Chilcot report was finally published on7 July 2016. However, it was worth the wait. This post does not seek to summarise the report: there are many other good overviews (such as the BBC’s ). The report’s executive summary, in particular the key findings section, is also well worth a read. The intention is to cover in this and subsequent posts some of the key legal issues raised by the report. This post considers the relevance of the Chilcot report’s findings to the broader issue of whether Britain’s intervention in Iraq was legal – an issue which was not itself within the remit of the inquiry.
View original post 2,246 more words