[Media-watch] Legality of Iraq occupation 'flawed' (and other cuttings) - Independent, FT, Guardian - 5 July 2004

[Julie-ann Davies]

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=537972



Legality of Iraq occupation 'flawed'

By Marie Woolf, Chief Political Correspondent

05 July 2004

The senior Foreign Office lawyer who resigned after ministers ignored her
advice that the war in Iraq was illegal has issued a damning legal critique
of the occupation, claiming that the alleged abuse of prisoners "could
amount to war crimes".

In her first newspaper interview since her resignation, Elizabeth
Wilmshurst, the former deputy legal adviser to the Foreign Office, said that
the basis for going to war should always be based on "facts" rather than an
"assertion" about an "imminent threat". Ms Wilmshurst said "it could be
alleged that the use of force in Iraq was aggression" while "the kinds of
abusive treatment of Iraqi prisoners that have been alleged could amount to
war crimes".

Her comments came as Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain's former envoy to Iraq,
made the clearest admission yet that intelligence that Saddam Hussein had
stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons was wrong. He said: "We were
wrong on the stockpiles, we were right about the intention."

Ms Wilmshurst expressed concern about the size of the US civilian presence
in Iraq. She also said she was worried about the lack of legal protection
for Iraqis if they were harmed by allied troops or civilian contractors,
including private security guards. She said it was "worrying" that the
occupying powers had given immunity to US and British civilians which was
"very, very wide" and "not what you would expect". They would be protected
from prosecution even if they seriously injured Iraqi women and children.

She said the Bush administration's "war on terror" was legal "nonsense" -
conferring no more powers on the US to detain prisoners than "the war
against obesity" - and President Bush's policy of pre-emptive self-defence
was illegal under international law.

Ms Wilmshurst, who is now head of the international law programme at the
think-tank Chatham House, also raised questions about the powers of
detention the Americans have in Iraq and Guantanamo Bay. She said it
violated the Geneva Conventions to deny inmates in Guantanamo Bay a formal
assessment of their status.

Although she said she would not discuss the advice she gave to ministers,
she is understood to have told them that British participation in the
invasion of Iraq would flout international law. She said there were deep
concerns among international lawyers about the implications of the war on
terror, which may be used as an excuse to hold prisoners indefinitely. "This
rather extraordinary war against terror, which is a phrase that all lawyers
hate ... is not really a 'war', a conflict against terror, any more than the
war against obesity means that you can detain people," she said.

In a further side-swipe at American foreign policy she said President Bush's
policy of pre-emptive self-defence, which would allow the US to invade any
country it thought was a threat, was illegal under international law. "What
people are worried about is just assertions that there is an imminent
threat," she said.

The Butler inquiry report into intelligence on Iraq is to be published on 14
July, and reports suggest it will be critical of the intelligence services.

Sir Jeremy said on BBC's Breakfast with Frost: "There is no doubt that the
stockpiles that we feared might be there are not there. We didn't know they
were there, but we thought that there was a considerable danger that they
were there, because the intelligence, not just in the American and British
systems but in the French, German and Russian systems, also was quite
compelling at the time." He said Washington was influenced by the Iraqi
exile Ahmed Chalabi and underestimated the potential problems of post-war
security.

Related Link:
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=537969



_________________



http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1087373467445&p=1012571727085



No WMD stockpiles in Iraq, admits ex-envoy

By Christopher Adams in London

Published: July 4 2004 18:44 | Last Updated: July 4 2004 18:44



Tony Blair's former envoy to Iraq has admitted that claims Saddam Hussein
had stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction were wrong, saying no evidence
of them had been found.



Sir Jeremy Greenstock, who was Britain's most senior diplomat in Iraq after
the conflict and ambassador to the United Nations in the run-up to military
action, said there was "no doubt that the stockpiles that we feared might be
there are not there.  (more at URL)

___________________

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1254072,00.html

July 5, 2004

Did one woman's obsession take America to war?

She is a conspiracy theorist whose political conceits have consistently been
proved wrong. So why were Bush and his aides so keen to swallow Laurie
Mylroie's theories on Saddam and terrorism?  (More at URL)



____________________



http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1254037,00.html

Iraq gets fraction of US aid billions

Suzanne Goldenberg in Washington
Monday July 5, 2004
The Guardian

The US government spent just 2% of the $18.4bn (£10bn) it had obtained from
Congress for the urgent reconstruction of Iraq before formally ending its
occupation last week.

The White House budget office report, the first detailed audit of the
reconstruction, showed that the US occupation authorities had spent nothing
on healthcare or water and sanitation, two of the most urgent needs for
Iraqis. In contrast, a total of $9m was spent on administrative expenses.
(More at URL.)

_____________________

____________________