National security laws

What the Chilcot Report Teaches Us About National Security Lawyering

The Chilcot report has sent shock waves through the British political establishment, which is still recovering from the unexpected Brexit vote. The report, everyone agrees, offers adevastating critique of former Prime Minister Tony Blair, who famously told then-President George W. Bush that he would be with him through “whatever.” But what has been less widely noticed is the equally disturbing insight the report offers into the national security lawyering in the UK and the US during the lead-in to the war.

One of the most remarkable documents in the published evidence is a more than 200-page transcript of Lord Peter Goldsmith’s testimony before the Committee. In it, he details his initial resistance to — and eventual acquiescence in — the view that the use of military force against Iraq could be legally justified.

That view has now been widely (though not universally) repudiated. Most of theinternational law submissions to the Chilcot Inquiry are highly critical of Lord Goldsmith’s conclusion that the 2003 invasion of Iraq was legal. (It is important to note, however, that the report itself does not reach a decision one way or the other — a decision that has itself come under scrutiny.)