All the news?

Channel 4 News consistently cover the stories other channels can’t be bothered with or have forgotten about. Their coverage of the run up to the invasion of Iraq is a case in point. On the day when most media outlets are reporting solely on the changes announced by Jack ‘man of’ Straw to prevent ‘intelligence failures’ occurring next time the government want to fabricate a justification for war, Channel 4 continue on the bigger story that Bliar is a liar and that the legal advice was a sham.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst was deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office until she resigned on the eve of the invasion. Her resignation letter has been released today under the Freedom of Information Act. One paragraph though was censored by the government, something that should only be done on the grounds of national security. The censored paragraph reads

"My views (that an invasion would be illegal) accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this Office (the foreign office legal team office) before and after the adoption of UN security council resolution 1441 and with what the Attorney General gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7 March. (The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line.)"

What exactly are the national security worries over the paragraph above? It’s certainly embarrassing to Bliar but having an embarrassed PM isn’t a national security matter is it?

More seriously though is the implication that contrary to what we have previously been told, the Attorney General initially held the opinion that an invasion would be illegal without a second UN mandate. He suddenly changed his mind at some point between 7th March and 17th March. Why? I hope it was for a reason more solid than pressure from above.