Chilcot Investigation Continues

In an attempt to bring myself and hopefully readers up to date on important matters that the American Media seems to dismiss, here is an update on the "Chilcot Investigation", taking place in Great Britain, with great fanfare, great public interest, as the Brit make an effort to place the relative legality of the 2003 preemptive invasion of Iraq by an alliance headed by Great Britain, and the United States.
Prime Minister Tony Blair has been accused of "unlawful use of force on such a scale (that it) amounts to the crime of aggression." At several points in this investigation, Blair has repeated that he "believed what he did was right." Blair "believed" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and he "believed" the intelligence showed Saddam Hussein was a threat.
Baghdad was destroyed. Iraqi People in the drawn out war died in the range of hundreds of thousands. Iraqi art that had been preserved for centuries was destroyed. The alliance hanged the leader of the Iraqi People, Saddam Hussein for crimes against his people. The alliance installed a Government intended to be favorable to Western priorities. In many cases this installation failed because the people of Iraq were more faithful to their religion and to their culture than Western leaders had anticipated.
The Brits now express the sentiment that that there now are 5 million Iraqi orphans, and that the United States, and the United Kingdom are responsible. Many would make amends.

In the current phase of the Chilcot Investigation - The London commission being headed by one Sir John Chilcot - the prime witness being examined is the former Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw.
Mr. Straw concedes he play a major role in the decision to invade.
if he had objected, the UK would not have invaded Iraq. It is alleged that when Mr. Straw's legal adviser told him an invasion without a second UN resolution would amount to a crime of aggression, Straw rejected the advice. In an article dated February 8, 2010, Times Online states that Mr. Straw is expected to come under fire from the panel because some of the evidence he gave during an earlier appearance has been apparently contradicted by subsequent witnesses.

The Justice Minister (Gordon Brown) told the panel that he had repeatedly warned Mr. Blair about the legality of the conflict and agonized over whether to support it.

Other witnesses have since suggested that he had disregarded unanimous legal opinion within the Foreign Office and told Cabinet and the House of Commons that there was a clear legal case for war.

The BBC on February 8 indicates: Sir Michael Wood, Straw's senior legal adviser at the time had advised him it would amount to a "crime of aggression".

Mr. Straw replied he had given it "the serious attention it deserved". But he went on to say he disagreed with Sir Michael's claim there was "no doubt" it would be illegal.
In a statement given to the inquiry, Mr. Straw said it would be a "fundamentally flawed" system if ministers had to accept all legal advice. He wrote: "Far from 'ignoring' this advice, as has been suggested publicly, I read Sir Michael's minute with great care and gave it the serious attention it deserved.