The legal case for war - a UCL professor's view

The Guardian has today published an extract from a forthcoming book from UCL law professor, Phillipe Sands which claims to shed more light on the advice given (or not) to the government by Lord Goldsmith about the legality of a war against Iraq, and also revealing that "in her letter of resignation in protest against the war, Elizabeth Wilmshurst, deputy legal adviser at the Foreign Office, described the planned invasion of Iraq as a "crime of aggression"."
Let us recall that launching a war of aggression has been defined at the Nuremburg trials as the "supreme crime" in the international arena, and that the trial sentenced German leaders to death for perpetrating it. No wonder that "The government was so concerned that it might be prosecuted it set up a team of lawyers to prepare for legal action in an international court."
It would appear that concern for the rule of law is not something this government takes very seriously. Hence, the fiasco over detention of "terrorist suspects" and so on. Democracy isn't something people can be given. They have to exercise it for themselves. In the case of Iraq, few would disagree with this statement. Looking in the mirror is often harder, but far more important too. But how reliable is Sands' advice? It seems to me the government will be able to dismiss this story, continuing to avoid publishing the advice it was given for reasons of "national security" - it's all for your own good, you understand.