Government Ordered to Release Minutes of Iraq Discussions
By Andrew Sparrow
The Guardian UK

Tuesday 26 February 2008

The minutes of cabinet meetings at which ministers discussed the legality of invading Iraq should be published, the information commissioner, Richard Thomas, said today.

In an unprecedented ruling, Thomas said the papers about the controversial legal advice should be made public in part because "there is a widespread view that the justification for the decision on military action in Iraq is either not fully understood or that the public were given the full or genuine reasons for that decision".

Thomas said the public interest in disclosure outweighed the principles that normally allow the government not to have to publish minutes of cabinet decisions.

The government is expected to appeal against Thomas's decision, which on its own will not guarantee that the minutes will be disclosed.

The legality of the invasion of Iraq has been a source of huge controversy ever since the invasion in March 2003, with some lawyers and campaigners believing that Tony Blair's decision to attack was illegal under international law.

At the time the government published a nine-paragraph legal opinion written by the then-attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, claiming that the invasion was legal.

But it subsequently emerged that, in a much longer legal opinion written 10 days earlier, Goldsmith expressed reservations about the legality of the attack.

Thomas issued his ruling today in relation to a request submitted under the Freedom of Information Act for copies of minutes and records relating to the two meetings of the cabinet held between March 7 2003, when Goldsmith wrote the first legal minute, and March 17, when he published the second.

The first document was never shown to the cabinet and some campaigners believe that, if cabinet ministers had known the full truth about Goldsmith's reservations, they might not have supported Blair's decision to invade.

Thomas's ruling is significant because cabinet minutes are normally exempt from FoI legislation under rules saying that information relating to the formulation of government policy and ministerial communications does not have to be published.

But Thomas decided that the "gravity and controversial nature of the subject matter" meant that in this case the information should be disclosed.

"The commissioner considers that a decision on whether to take military action against another country is so important that accountability for such decision-making is paramount," Thomas said in his ruling.

"Though not strictly relevant, acceptance by the current prime minister that decisions to got to war should ultimately be referred to parliament reinforce arguments flowing from the gravity of subject matter.

"In this case, in respect of the public debate and controversy surrounding the decision to take military action in Iraq, the process by which the government reached its decision adds to the public interest in maximum transparency.

"It is also the case that there is a widespread view that the justification for the decision on military action in Iraq is either not fully understood or that the public were not given the full or genuine reasons for that decision."

However, Thomas also accepted that, if the government were to publish the minutes, it would be entitled to withhold certain sections whose publication "would be likely to have a detrimental effect on international relations".

The Cabinet Office, which has contested the FoI request, has the right to appeal within 28 days to the information tribunal. If the tribunal were to support Thomas, and order publication, the government could then take the matter to the high court.

-------

I wonder if we ever released the "minutes" when we were fighting Hitler or the Japs?

gotta wonder about the heading saying the gov was ordered and then say in the body of the article the gov should publish..anyone with minimal legal education knows the word "should" means nothing, it's a suggestion...if it was an order then the world "shall" would have been used...

Ask Dragoness. I am sure she can find a website where she can copy and paste the answer to that one.