Topics

61

For Your Information / Oxfam International Women's Day Report on Iraq

« on: March 08, 2009, 05:07:10 PM »

Oxfam International Women's Day Report

http://www.oxfam.org.uk/resources/policy/conflict_disasters/iraq-in-her-own-words.html

In her own words: Iraqi women talk about their greatest concerns and challenges

The plight of women in Iraq today has gone largely ignored, both within Iraqi society and by the

international community. For more than five years, headlines have been dominated by political and

social turmoil, the chaos of conflict and widespread violence. This has overshadowed the abysmal state

of the civilian population’s day-to-day lives, a result of that very turmoil and violence.

Behind the headlines, essential services have collapsed, families have been torn apart and women in

particular have fallen victim to the consequences of war. The specific hardships that some of Iraq’s

most vulnerable individuals cope with on a daily basis, as told by them, have overwhelmingly gone

unheard.

Introduction
As an international humanitarian agency working with Iraqi non-governmental organisations that help

civilians on the ground, Oxfam last year conceived the idea of conducting a survey of women in Iraq who

have been affected by the conflict, many of who represent some of the most at risk families in the

country. The largest group of women interviewed who are deemed especially vulnerable, consists of those

widowed by conflict who are now acting as the head of her household, and who have been driven deep into

poverty. This survey is a follow up to Oxfam’s 2007 report ‘Rising to the Humanitarian Challenge in

Iraq,’ which found that one-third of the Iraqi population was in need of humanitarian assistance and

that essential services were in ruins.

At the time, there was a striking absence in the public sphere of a collective female voice from the

cities, towns and villages of Iraq about the specific challenges women and their families face on a

daily basis. In fact, there was very little comprehensive, detailed information available about the

daily challenges of the Iraqi civilian population as a whole and their struggle to make ends meet –

largely due to rampant insecurity. So a team of Oxfam-supported surveyors last year fanned out across

the country, knocked on doors, and unlocked hundreds of women’s voices that, until that point, had

found nobody to listen.

Oxfam and the Al-Amal Association, the Iraqi partner organization that conducted the survey in the five

provinces of Baghdad, Basra, Kirkuk, Najaf and Nineveh, do not claim that the information they gathered

from 1,700 respondents represents the situation facing all Iraqis, or even all women in Iraq. However,

it does provide a disturbing snapshot of many women’s lives and those of their children and other

family members. The information presented in this paper was collected over a period of several months,

starting in the summer of 2008.

The women revealed that their families’ everyday lives had worsened in many cases since Oxfam released

its humanitarian report – and despite the improved overall security situation in Iraq that began in

mid-2007. Not only did a large proportion of women say that access to basic services had grown more

difficult, but they also told surveyors that they had become more and more impoverished over the past

six years, and that their own personal safety remained a pressing concern.

Some of the survey results were:
Nearly 60 per cent of women said that safety and security continued to be their number one concern

despite improvements in overall security in Iraq
As compared with 2007 and 2006, more than 40 per cent of respondents said their security situation

worsened last year and slightly more than 22 per cent said it had remained static compared to both

years
55 per cent had been a victim of violence since 2003; 22 per cent of women had been victims of domestic

violence; More than 30 per cent had family members who died violently
Some 45 per cent of women said their income was worse in 2008 compared with 2007 and 2006, while

roughly 30 per cent said it had not changed in that same time period
33 per cent had received no humanitarian assistance since 2003
76 per cent of widows said they did not receive a pension from the government
Nearly 25 per cent of women had no daily access to drinking water and half of those who did have daily

access to water said it was not potable; 69 per cent said access to water was worse or the same as it

was in 2006 and 2007
One-third of respondents had electricity three hours or less per day; two-thirds had six hours or less;

80 per cent said access to electricity was more difficult or the same as in 2007, 82 per cent said the

same in comparison to 2006 and 84 per cent compared to 2003
Nearly half of women said access to quality healthcare was more difficult in 2008 compared with 2006

and 2007
40 per cent of women with children reported that their sons and daughters were not attending school
After analysing the survey results, it was also found that 35.5 per cent of participants were acting as

head of the household, primarily as a result of conflict. Nearly 25 per cent of women had not been

married. If this reflects Iraq as a whole, it is the highest rate in the larger region, a result of the

loss of men of marrying age as a result of the conflict. 55 per cent of women said they had been

displaced or forced to abandon their homes at least once since 2003. Nearly half reported sharing their

homes with other families.

In early 2009, reports of improved security in Iraq, and even a return to ‘normality,’ began appearing

in the media. Similar reports of diminished suicide bombs and other violent indiscriminate attacks

emerged at the time of the initial data collection last year. However insecurity remains in many

provinces including Baghdad, Kirkuk and Nineveh where small-scale attacks, assassination and

kidnappings continue. Women in particular are less safe now than at any other time during the conflict

or in the years before.

Beyond security, the overwhelming concern women voiced was extreme difficulty accessing basic services

such as clean water, electricity and adequate shelter despite billions of US dollars that have been

spent in the effort to rehabilitate damaged or destroyed infrastructure. Availability of essentials

such as water, sanitation and health care is far below national averages. Both the Iraqi organisation

and researcher that carried out the survey and analysed its findings corroborated that the overall

challenges facing women and the Iraqi population as a whole remained the same in early 2009 as they did

in the second half of 2008 when the data presented in this paper was collected.

Women especially appear to have been hard hit by the crippled essential services sector because many

have also been driven into debilitating poverty since 2003. The survey and more detailed interviews

revealed that a large number of women have been left unable to earn an income because many of their

husbands or sons – the family breadwinners – had been killed, disappeared, abducted or suffered from

mental or physical illness. Although there are no precise figures, it is estimated that there are now

some 740,000 widows in Iraq.

Many of the women interviewed reported that they have been unable to secure financial assistance, in

the form of a widow’s pension, or compensation from the government for the loss or debilitating injury

of family members during the current conflict or previous ones. Of the widows that were surveyed (25

per cent of respondents), 76 per cent said that they were not receiving a pension from the government.

As a result, women who are now acting as head of household are much less likely to be able to afford to

send their children to school, pay fees to access private community generators or buy clean water and

medicines.

In summary, now that overall security situation, although still very fragile, begins to stabilise, and

as the Iraqi government is now benefiting from tens of billions of dollars in oil revenues (despite

falling global prices), countless mothers, wives, widows and daughters of Iraq remain caught in the

grip of a silent emergency. They are in urgent need of protection and – along with their families – are

in desperate need of regular access to affordable and quality basic services, and urgently require

enhanced humanitarian and financial assistance. Considering recent security gains, it is in the best

interest of the Iraqi government to now begin robust investment into the lives of the war-battered

civilian population, with the support – including technical support – of the international community.

62

South Tyneside Stop the War / Diabolical Liberty-Taking(s) ...

« on: March 08, 2009, 04:54:25 PM »

Diabolical Liberty-Taking ... even the tamed NewLabour Stooges at the Guardian, etc, seem to be beginning to notice it ...

 http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/mar/07/surveillance-police-politics

Politicised prying

Editorial The Guardian, Saturday 7 March 2009

Yesterday the Guardian reported that firms were buying information about which workers are active in unions. Today we expose how the police monitor protesters, and upload their details on to a central database. And their own films from last year's climate camp, which can be seen on the Guardian website, show that while they are at it, they also take the chance to pry on journalists who are covering the story.

Taken together, these stories provide a reminder of why last weekend's Convention on Modern Liberty was so timely. There are those, well represented in the government, who argue that the great eye of surveillance is a hallucination of the paranoid middle class. For most voters, certainly, paying the bills and being safe on the street are more pressing concerns than the proliferation of CCTV. The deep worry, however, has never been mere discomfort at the idea of being filmed or otherwise tracked. Rather, it is the potential for abuse that comes with the electronic logbooks. The lesson of history is that the powerful cannot be relied on to use the information they possess for the public good, as opposed to their own convenience.

The dangers are most obvious when the prying has a political dimension, as it does in the case of today's story. The police will first have to explain how collating details on protesters - and holding them for years - tallies with their recent claim in a separate court case that such evidence is only kept as an insurance policy against being sued. They said then that they kept the material on CD in case it one day proved useful in their defence. Next they will need to establish how the secretive transfer of such data to a central system is compatible with the right to privacy enshrined in the European convention, which could well prove to be difficult to do. Legal niceties aside, the fundamental question is what the service thinks it is doing keeping tabs on the political activities of individuals who are not suspected of any crime, or indeed spying on journalists who are doing their job.

If today's revelations underline the perils surveillance represent for democracy, the employer-funded blacklist of supposedly awkward workers, which the information commissioner exposed yesterday, illustrates how it also affects the bread and butter of life. Two electricians who fear they are on the list, whom we interviewed yesterday, believe it was employers' improper knowledge of their working history that left them unable to find work. The black mark was given for having taken bad bosses to tribunals; in other cases, past union activism may have had the same effect. Rights at work count for little when the right to confidentiality is trampled on. The public interest thus requires respect for private lives.

63

News Items / American Nuke Jobs For British Workers!

« on: February 10, 2009, 02:28:22 PM »

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/feb/09/us-uk-atomic-weapons-nuclear-power

US using British atomic weapons factory for its nuclear programme• Joint warhead research carried out at Aldermaston • Work breaches nuclear treaty, campaigners warn

Matthew Taylor and Richard Norton-Taylor The Guardian, Monday 9 February 2009 Article history

The US military has been using Britain's atomic weapons factory to carry out research into its own nuclear warhead programme, according to evidence seen by the Guardian.

US defence officials said that "very valuable" warhead research has taken place at the Atomic Weapons Establishment at Aldermaston in Berkshire as part of an ongoing and secretive deal between the British and American governments.

The Ministry of Defence admitted it is working with the US on the UK's "existing nuclear warhead stockpile and the range of replacement options that might be available" but declined to give any further information.

Last night, opposition MPs called for a full parliamentary inquiry into the extent of the collaboration at Aldermaston and campaign groups warned any such deal was in breach of international law. They added that it also undermined Britain's claim to have an independent nuclear weapons programme and meant British taxpayers were effectively subsidising America's nuclear programme.

The US president, Barack Obama, while on the campaign trail said he wanted to eliminate nuclear weapons and that one of his first actions on taking office would be to "stop the development of new nuclear weapons". But the Pentagon is at odds with the president. The defence secretary, Robert Gates, and other senior officials argue that the US's existing arsenal needs to be upgraded and that would not constitute "new" weapons.

Kate Hudson, of CND, said: "Any work preparing the way for new warheads cuts right across the UK's commitment to disarm, which it signed up to in the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. That this work may be contributing to both future US and British warheads is nothing short of scandalous."

Nick Harvey, defence spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, said parliament and the country would react with "outrage" at the prospect of British taxpayers funding a new US nuclear weapon.

"All this backroom dealing and smoke and mirrors policy is totally unacceptable, the government must open the Aldermaston accounts to full parliamentary scrutiny," he added.

The extent of US involvement at Aldermaston came to light in an interview with John Harvey, policy and planning director at the US National Nuclear Security Administration, carried out last year by the thinktanks Chatham House and the Centre for Strategic Studies.

Referring to "dual axis hydrodynamic" experiments which, with the help of computer modelling, replicate the conditions inside a warhead at the moment it starts to explode, Harvey said: "There are some capabilities that the UK has that we don't have and that we borrow... that I believe we have been able to exploit that's been very valuable to us."

It is unclear whether the experiments are still being carried out but, in the same interview, Harvey admitted that the US and UK had struck a new deal over the level of cooperation, including work on US plans for a new generation of nuclear warhead known as the Reliable Replacement Warhead (RRW). He said: "We have recently, I can't tell you when, taken steps to amend the MDA [Mutual Defence Agreement], not only to extend it but to amend it to allow for a broader extent of cooperation than in the past, and this has to do with the RRW effort."

Campaigners said the comments represent the first direct evidence that the US is using UK facilities to develop its nuclear programme. Lawyers acting on their behalf said the increasing levels of cooperation and the extension the MDA breach the non-proliferation treaty, which states: "Each nuclear weapon state party to the treaty undertakes not to transfer to any recipient whatsoever nuclear weapons or other nuclear explosive devices indirectly or indirectly."

The MoD admitted the two countries are working together, "examining both the optimum life of the UK's existing nuclear warhead stockpile and the range of replacement options that might be available to inform decisions on whether and how we may need to refurbish or replace the existing warhead likely to be necessary in the next parliament".

Congress has stopped funding research into RRW but campaigners believe the US military may have used facilities in the UK to get around the restrictions at home.

"Billions of pounds have been poured into the Atomic Weapons Establishment over recent years to build new research facilities," said Hudson. "If these are being used to support US programmes outside Congress's controls on spending, it raises even more serious questions about why the British taxpayer is paying for a so-called 'independent deterrent'."

64

For Your Information / Costs of War: North-East Casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq - Sunday Sun report

« on: January 04, 2009, 04:38:07 PM »

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2009/01/04/north-east-bears-the-brunt-of-war-deaths-79310-22600474/

North East bears the brunt of war deaths

Jan 4 2009 by Phil Doherty, Sunday Sun

THE North has paid a heavy price for the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, suffering more deaths per head of population than anywhere else in the country.

According to Ministry of Defence figures there have been 316 fatalities in the two conflicts, of which 34 involved troops from the region.

That equates to nearly 11 per cent of the death toll in a population that makes up just six per cent of the entire country.

Families who have lost loved ones in the wars are divided as to whether the cost in lives has been worth it.

John Miller, father of Simon Miller, one of six Royal Military Police personnel killed in Iraq in 2003, said: “I’m shocked at the level of casualties from the region.

“It looks like our region is bearing the brunt of it. Lives are being ruined for nothing and it’s not been worth one life. The soldiers signed up to protect Queen and country and not some foreign land like Iraq or Afghanistan.”

The latest soldier to be killed was sergeant Chris Reed of the 6th Battalion, The Rifles, who was blown up by a roadside bomb in Helmand Province, Afghanistan, on New Year’s day. He came from Plymouth and planned to marry after his tour of duty..

His death was the first casualty of 2009 and follows a year in which Britain lost 51 troops in Afghanistan.

However, John Hyde, whose son Ben Hyde died alongside Simon Miller, believes the sacrifices made have been worth it.

He said: “I’m very proud of what Ben and his colleagues have achieved. That Britain will pull its troops out of Iraq by March and the Americans have handed security of the Green Zone to the Iraqi security forces shows there has been significant improvement in the security in the country.

“We have stabilised the country, although it was never going to be easy.

“I would like to see a peaceful and democratic Iraq because that would be a fitting memorial for all those who have lost their lives.”

65

For Your Information / Newcastle Rally 03_01_2008: Sunday Sun Report

« on: January 04, 2009, 04:35:48 PM »

http://www.sundaysun.co.uk/news/north-east-news/2009/01/04/gaza-raids-spark-anger-on-north-streets-79310-22600607/

Gaza raids spark anger on North streets

Jan 4 2009 by Ian Robson, Sunday Sun

 
THOUSANDS took to the streets yesterday to protest against Israeli military action in Gaza.

Demonstrations in Newcastle and York were among 18 across the country.

Hundreds of protesters gathered at Grey’s Monument, Newcastle to show support for the Palestinians.

Supporters, including children, waved flags and banners during the event, organised by the protest group Fight Racism Fight Imperialism North East.

A spokesman said: “The initiative has come from Palestinians living in Newcastle. Let’s make this just the beginning of a renewed wave of resistance on the streets of Britain. In Palestine there has been talk of a third intifada. We have a duty living in a heartland of imperialism to also play our role.”

A spokeswoman for Northumbria Police said the official attendance figure was 150.

She said: “There were no arrests and it went off peacefully.”

A protest in York at the city’s St Sampson’s Square was followed by a march.

The London protest was supported by singer Annie Lennox and Bianca Jagger.

Police put the numbers at Trafalgar Square at 5000 to 6000 but organisers said that figure was a gross underestimate. Ms Lennox, formerly part of Eurythmics with her ex-partner Dave Stewart, of Sunderland, called for a ceasefire.

She said: “I’m here today as a mother, not as a politician. I’m not pro anybody, I’m here for human rights. We are looking at a huge human rights tragedy in front of us. The idea of an air assault combined with a ground war in such a tightly packed area as Gaza is unimaginable.

“There are 2000 people injured already. It will be a bloodbath.

“The turnout today is absolutely incredible . . . it shows that so many people really care about the issue. Hopefully, now, we will see dialogue, dialogue, dialogue.”

She said President George Bush, who has described Hamas’s rocket attacks as an act of terror, was not helping the situation.

66

South Tyneside Stop the War / WhiteWash(ed) News ... Latest ...

« on: December 02, 2008, 03:18:19 PM »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7760684.stm

Page last updated at 14:37 GMT, Tuesday, 2 December 2008
 
Menezes verdict choice limited 
 
The jury at the inquest into the death of Jean Charles de Menezes will not be able to consider a verdict of unlawful killing, the coroner has said.

Sir Michael Wright said that having heard all the evidence, a verdict of unlawful killing was "not justified".

Lawyers for the de Menezes family are now going to the High Court to apply for a judicial review of the decision.

Mr de Menezes, 27, was shot dead by police after he was mistaken for one of the failed 21 July 2005 bombers.

Sir Michael's ruling came as he began his summing up of the case on Tuesday and leaves the jury to choose between an open, narrative or lawful killing verdict.

"In directing you that you cannot return a verdict of unlawful killing, I am not saying that nothing went wrong in a police operation which resulted in the killing of an innocent man," he told the hearing.

But in narrowing down the choice of verdict, he added: "All interested persons agree that a verdict of unlawful killing could only be left to you if you could be sure that a specific officer had committed a very serious crime - murder or manslaughter."   

Sir Michael also warned jurors that they must not attach any criminal or civil fault to any individuals.

A spokesman for the Justice4Jean campaign said: "It is essential in a case of this significance that a jury is given the widest opportunity to comment on all the evidence they have heard.

"We await the decision of the High Court and hope a just outcome will prevail."

The 11-strong jury has heard from 100 witnesses since the inquest began at the Oval Cricket Ground in September. Among them were the two firearms officers who shot Mr de Menezes, known only as C2 and C12.

The coroner told the jury that the verdict they chose depended on whether they felt that those two officers honestly believed the Brazilian represented an imminent, mortal threat and whether lethal force was justified in those circumstances.   Put aside any emotion

Reminding them that the Brazilian's mother, Maria Otone de Menezes, had heard much of the evidence, Sir Michael said: "I know that your heart will go out to her.

"But these are emotional reactions, ladies and gentlemen, and you are charged with returning a verdict based on evidence.

"Put aside any emotion - put them to one side."

The jury can choose to deliver a narrative verdict if they believe their conclusions require detailed explanation.

A narrative could also be attached to any lawful killing verdict if the jury felt it would help explain their decision.

In 2007, the Metropolitan Police was fined £175,000 over the shooting of Mr de Menezes, after it was convicted under the Health and Safety Act of "endangering the public".

But the trial concluded that police chief Cressida Dick, who led the operation, bore "no personal culpability", and Sir Michael told the inquest jury that their verdict could not be inconsistent with that decision.

The jury was also given a series of questions to consider based on what they have heard.

These included whether C12 shouted a warning - "Armed police" - before opening fire, and whether Mr de Menezes stood up and moved towards officers as they approached.

Jurors were also asked to consider which of a number of factors contributed to the Brazilian's death.

Among those were:

'The pressure on police after the 7 July London bombings'
'A failure by police to ensure that Mr de Menezes was stopped before he reached the Underground'
'The innocent behaviour of Mr de Menezes increasing suspicion' (??!!!!!! {this apparently is what the coroner actually said!})
'Shortcomings in the communications system between various police teams involved in the operation'
 

67

South Tyneside Stop the War / Code Name 'rekn'W' - Mirror views

« on: November 25, 2008, 03:08:22 PM »

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-stories/2008/11/25/tony-blair-bugged-by-us-spies-former-security-agent-claims-115875-20922693/

Tony Blair bugged by US spies former security agent claims

  By Anton Antonowicz US Correspondent 25/11/2008

US listened to PM's calls Personal details on file

 
US spymasters snooped on Tony Blair's private calls, a former security agent claims.

He said the former Prime Minister was given the codename Anchory by America's National Security Agency which listened to and taped his personal phone chats.

A file on Mr Blair, now a Middle East peace envoy, was compiled at the world's biggest listening post - NSA HQ at Fort Gordon, Georgia.

Former Navy communications operator David Murfee Faulk told ABC News that he saw a file in 2006 on the "private life" of Mr Blair.

He said his security clearance at Fort Gordon gave him access to top secret information. He would not say what was in the file but it was of a "personal nature".

The revelations will cause huge embarrassment to outgoing President George Bush because there is an unwritten rule that the UK and US do not gather information on each other. GCHQ in Gloucestershire and the NSA routinely share information on other nations. And Britain and the US have a special relationship. Mr Blair was Mr Bush's closest ally during the invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq.

One former CIA agent said: "If it is true that we maintained a file on Blair, it would represent a huge breach of the agreement we have with the Brits."

Whistleblower Faulk, 39, also claimed that the US bugged Iraq's first interim president, Ghazi al-Yawer. Arabic translator Mr Faulk was assigned to monitor Mr Al-Yawer and said he heard pillow talk with his fiancee.

He claimed that some young translators would pass round tapes of sex chats for a laugh during smoking breaks.

Mr Faulk first broke his cover last month when he claimed that US intelligence intercepted the private phone calls of American journalists, aid workers and soldiers stationed in Iraq. The US Congress later called for his claims to be investigated.

Second whistleblower Adrienne Kinne, 31, backed up the allegations about eavesdropping on journalists. She said the calls were intercepted when they used satellite telephones.

Ms Kinne said the calls were "personal, private things with Americans who are not in any way, shape or form associated with anything to do with terrorism".

Mr Bush has always denied the NSA snooped on private US citizens.

One time NSA director General Michael Hayden, now director of the CIA, told Congress that private chats were not intercepted.

He said: "It's not for the heck of it. We are narrowly focused and drilled on protecting the nation against al-Qaeda and those organisations who are affiliated with it."

Faulk, who until recently was a newspaper reporter, said he was one of asmany as 3,000 linguists at Fort Gordon. Much of their work was monitoring calls in and out of Baghdad's fortified Green Zone.

68

South Tyneside Stop the War / Filling Memory Holes ...

« on: November 25, 2008, 03:06:09 PM »

The mainstreamers mentioned it in passing ... then (in)conveniently forgot it ...

+

Egs

From Times Online November 18, 2008

Lord Bingham attacks Bush for 'cynical' disregard for international law
Frances Gibb, Legal Editor

One of Britain's most senior legal figures has castigated the Bush administration for its "cynical" disregard for the rule of international law and the UK's record as "an occupying power in Iraq".

Lord Bingham of Cornhill, who has just stepped down as senior law lord, cited the US-led invasion of Iraq, its "redefinition" of torture and the detention conditions of suspects in Guantanamo Bay.

"Particularly disturbing to proponents of the rule of law is the cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration," he said in a lecture to mark the 50th anniversary of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law.

It was not clear, he added, what, if any, legal justification the US Government relied on for its invasion of Iraq, although prominent figures had made clear their ambition to remove Saddam Hussein.

Related Links
Lord Bingham: 'no reason' to exclude Sharia
Lord Bingham of Cornhill
He was also scathing about the legal advice of the former Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, on Britain's invasion of Iraq which was "flawed" in stating that a second UN Security Council resolution was not needed.

If that was right, the invasion was a "serious violation of international law and of the rule of law," he said.

"The moment that a state treats the rulers of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rests is broken."

Lord Goldsmith had however been consistent in saying that regime change was not a justification, Lord Bingham said.

But he added that the record of the British as an occupying power in Iraq had been "sullied by a number of incidents, most notably the shameful beating to death of Mr Baha Mousa in Basra".

However, he said: "But such breaches of the law were not as a result of deliberate government policy and the rights of the victims have been recognised."

"This contrasts with the unilteral decisions of the US Government that the Geneva Convention did not apply to the detention conditions in Guantanamo Bay, Cubna; or to trial of al-Qaida or Taliban prisoners by military commissions, or that al-Qaida suspects should be denied the rights of both prisoners of war and crimiman spects and that torture should be redefined, contrary to the Torture Convention."

Lord Bingham said that recent events highlighted two serious deficiencies with the rule of law in the international sphere.

The first was "the willingnesss of some states in some circumstances to rewrite the rules to meet the perceived exigencies of the political situation," he said. The UK did this in the Suez crisis of 1956.

The second was that only 65 of 192 member states of the United Nations had signed up to the compulsory jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice.

"It is a lamentable fact that, of the five permanent members of the Security Council, only one, the United Kingdom, now does so, Russia and China never having done so and France and the United States having withdrawn earlier acceptances."

That step had to be taken if the rule of law was to become truly effective, he said. Meanwhile, he predicted that states "chastened by their experience in Iraq" would be unlikely to repeat it.

Even though not hauled before any international court, they had been "arraigned at the bar of world opinon and judged unfavourably, with resulting damage to their standing and influence".

+

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/lawreports/joshuarozenberg/3471950/Lord-Goldsmiths-advice-on-Iraq-invasion-flawed-says-former-top-judge.html

Lord Goldsmith's advice on Iraq invasion 'flawed', says former top judge

Lord Bingham believes there was 'a serious violation of international law and the rule of law' by Britain. But the former Attorney General stands by his advice to Tony Blair in 2003 that military action against Iraq was lawful. And Jack Straw, the Lord Chancellor, also challenges Lord Bingham's view.
 
By Joshua Rozenberg

Last Updated: 4:53PM GMT 17 Nov 2008

Lord Goldsmith’s advice to ministers on Britain’s invasion of Iraq was “flawed in two fundamental respects”, Britain’s most respected former judge said tonight.

Lord Bingham KG, who retired in September as senior law lord, said that — if he was right in concluding that the 2003 invasion had been unauthorised — “there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and of the rule of law”.

It is thought to be the first time that Lord Bingham has expressed his views about the legal advice given to Tony Blair by the former Attorney General. The issue never came before Lord Bingham while he was sitting as a judge.

But Lord Goldsmith, who had been shown an advance text of Lord Bingham’s remarks, made it clear today that he stood by his advice. And the former Attorney General was supported this afternoon by the Lord Chancellor, Jack Straw.

Lord Bingham was delivering the annual Grotius Lecture, this year marking the 50th anniversary of the British Institute of International and Comparative Law. He was speaking as chairman of the institute, an independent research body that promotes the rule of law in international affairs.

In Lord Bingham's view, the effect of unilateral action by Britain, the US and some other countries had been to undermine the foundation on which the post-1945 consensus had been constructed. This was the prohibition of force — except in self-defence or, perhaps, to avert an impending humanitarian catastrophe — unless formally authorised by the UN Security Council.

Delivering a wide-ranging lecture on the importance of complying with international law, Lord Bingham summarised the former Attorney General’s reliance on three interrelated Security Council resolutions as authorising the Iraq invasion. In his full written advice to the Prime Minister of March 7, 2003 — not made public at the time — Lord Goldsmith QC considered that resolution 1441 could, in principle, revive the authority to use force contained in resolution 678 and suspended, but not revoked, by resolution 687. At that time, though, it was not clear to him whether the use of force required merely a discussion by the Security Council or a further resolution.

Summarising Lord Goldsmith’s reasoning, Lord Bingham said: “A reasonable case could be made that resolution 1441 was capable in principle of reviving the authorisation in resolution 678, but the argument could only be sustainable if there were ‘strong factual grounds’ for concluding that Iraq had failed to take the final opportunity. There would need to be ‘hard evidence’.”

Ten days later, in a Parliamentary written answer issued on March 17, 2003, Lord Goldsmith said it was “plain” that Iraq had failed to comply with its disarmament obligations and was therefore in material breach of resolution 687. Accordingly, the authority to use force under resolution 678 had revived.

The former judge then quoted the conclusion to Lord Goldsmith’s Parliamentary statement: “Resolution 1441 would, in terms, have provided that a further decision of the Security Council to sanction force was required if that had been intended. Thus, all that resolution 1441 requires is reporting to and discussion by the Security Council of Iraq’s failures, but not an express further decision to authorise force.”

Lord Bingham was not impressed. “This statement was, I think flawed in two fundamental respects,” he said.

“First, it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had: Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months.

“Secondly, it passes belief that a determination whether Iraq had failed to avail itself of its final opportunity was intended to be taken otherwise than collectively by the Security Council.”

The former senior law lord noted that Lord Goldsmith’s “revival” argument had been ill-received. Lord Alexander QC described it as “unconvincing”. Prof Philippe Sands QC called it a “bad argument”. And Prof Vaughan Lowe QC described it as “fatuous”.

Commenting on this “serious violation of international law”, Lord Bingham said: “The moment that a state treats the rules of international law as binding on others but not on itself, the compact on which the law rests is broken. Quoting Prof Lowe again, he said it was “the difference between the role of world policeman and world vigilante”.

After reading a draft of Lord Bingham’s speech, Lord Goldsmith said he remained of the view that his conclusion was correct. “I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view,” he told the telegraph.co.uk law page.

Why, though, did his views appear to harden between March 7 and March 17? “Having rightly expressed caution in my earlier advice, I had formed the view during the week before the 17th that it was my job to express a clear judgment one way or the other.”

Civil servants and military commanders had wanted a clear answer. “Either it was lawful or it was not,” Lord Goldsmith explained. “It could not be a little bit lawful.”

Having decided that military action was lawful, the Attorney General decided that he should express his view “shortly but clearly”.

Lord Bingham had said it was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply with resolution 678. But that was understood by Lord Goldsmith to have been Tony Blair’s view at the time, based on intelligence reports. Resolution 1441 was not about finding weapons of mass destruction.

And Lord Goldsmith also took issue with Lord Bingham’s view that a decision on whether Iraq had failed to take up its final opportunity was one to be reached collectively by the United Nations.

Having spoken to those who negotiated the terms of the resolution, Lord Goldsmith was sure that the need for a further determination had been deliberately omitted. US diplomats would not have agreed to resolution 1441 if they thought it allowed other members of the Security Council to block military action by requiring a second resolution that might be vetoed.

This afternoon, Lord Bingham amended the text of his speech to record — though not adopt — Lord Goldsmith’s concerns. He said: “I should make it plain that Mr Jack Straw, Foreign Secretary in March 2003, and Lord Goldsmith, Attorney General at the time, to whom my text was very recently copied, challenge the conclusion I have expressed. Lord Goldsmith emphasises that he believed the advice which he gave at the time to be correct — which I have not challenged — and remains of that view.”

After summarising the former Attorney General’s comments he continued: “Lord Goldsmith stresses that this was his genuine view which – I repeat – I have not challenged. Mr Straw agrees with what Lord Goldsmith says. The negotiating history and wording of Security Council resolution 1441 shows, he says, that it was not the intention of the Security Council, nor was it so expressed, that a decision on material breach had to be decided by the Security Council. This may be surprising, he comments, but it is true.”

Moving on to consider Britain’s role as an occupying power in Iraq, Lord Bingham said its record had been “sullied by a number of incidents, most notably the shameful beating to death of Mr Baha Mousa in Basra”. However, such breaches were not the result of deliberate government policy and the victims’ rights had been recognised.

“This contrasts with the unilateral decisions of the US government that the Geneva Conventions did not apply to the detention conditions in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, or to trial of al-Qaeda or Taliban prisoners by military commissions, that al-Qaeda suspects should be denied the rights of both prisoners of war and criminal suspects and that torture should be redefined, contrary to the Torture Convention and the consensus of international opinion, to connote pain, where physical, ‘of an intensity akin to that which accompanies serious physical injury such as death or organ failure’.”

But despite criticising the “cynical lack of concern for international legality among some top officials in the Bush administration”, Lord Bingham managed an optimistic conclusion. Most transactions governed by international law proceeded smoothly on the strength of known and accepted rules, he stressed.

And although there had been little public interest in the legality of Britain’s earlier military interventions such as the Suez Crisis of 1956, the issue of whether the Iraq invasion was lawful had loomed larger than ever before — “perhaps because of widespread doubt in this country about the wisdom and necessity of going to war”.

Prophecy was always perilous, Lord Bingham admitted. But it was “perhaps unlikely that states chastened by their experience in Iraq will be eager to repeat it”.

While they had not been “hauled before the International Court of Justice or any other tribunal to answer for their actions, they have been arraigned at the bar of world opinion, and been judged unfavourably, with resulting damage to their standing and influence”.

He concluded: “If the daunting challenges now facing the world are to be overcome, it must be through the medium of rules, internationally agreed, internationally implemented and, if necessary, internationally enforced. That is what the rule of law requires in the international order.”

+

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7734712.stm

Page last updated at 07:53 GMT, Tuesday, 18 November 2008
 
Iraq war 'violated rule of law' 
 
Former attorney general Lord Goldsmith defended his legal advice
Legal advice given to Tony Blair by the attorney general prior to the Iraq war was fundamentally "flawed," a former law lord has claimed.

Lord Bingham said Lord Goldsmith had given Mr Blair "no hard evidence" that Iraq had defied UN resolutions "in a manner justifying resort to force".

Therefore, the action by the UK and US was "a serious violation of international law," Lord Bingham added.

Lord Goldsmith said he stood by his advice to the then prime minister.

The Liberal Democrats say that Lord Bingham's comments made a full public inquiry "unavoidable" into the decision to invade Iraq.

Responding to Lord Bingham's criticism, Lord Goldsmith insisted the invasion of Iraq was legal.

"I would not have given that advice if it were not genuinely my view," he said.

Lord Bingham, a former Lord Chief Justice, made his comments in a speech on the rule of law at the British Institute of International and Comparative Law in London.

He referred to a written parliamentary statement made by Lord Goldsmith on 17 March 2003 in which he confirmed that war on Iraq would be legal on the grounds of existing UN resolutions.

Lord Bingham said: "This statement was flawed in two fundamental respects.   Many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully

"It was not plain that Iraq had failed to comply in a manner justifying resort to force and there were no strong factual grounds or hard evidence to show that it had.

"Hans Blix and his team of weapons inspectors had found no weapons of mass destruction, were making progress and expected to complete their task in a matter of months."

Lord Bingham also criticised Lord Goldsmith for failing to make clear that only the UN Security Council could judge whether there had been compliance and, if appropriate, authorise further action.

"If I am right that the invasion of Iraq by the US, the UK and some other states was unauthorised by the Security Council there was, of course, a serious violation of international law and of the rule of law," he said.

Lord Goldsmith said his critic was "entitled to his own legal perspective".

"But at the time and since then many nations other than ours took part in the action and did so believing that they were acting lawfully," he said.

He also said the UN resolution that Iraq was deemed to have defied - 1441 - did not need further determination by the Security Council.

Lord Chancellor Jack Straw backed Lord Goldsmith, arguing that his advice "was shared by many member states across the world".   

"I do not accept Lord Bingham's conclusions, which do not, I am afraid, take proper account of the text of Security Council Resolution 1441 nor its negotiating history," Mr Straw said.

But Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg said Lord Bingham's claims made a full public inquiry into the government's decision to go to war "unavoidable".

"Lord Bingham's stature means that his devastating criticism cannot just be brushed under the carpet," Mr Clegg said.

"This is a damning condemnation of what was an unjustified invasion which we now know to have flouted international law."

Former lord chief justice Lord Bingham retired from the bench in July. Lord Goldsmith stepped down from his post as attorney general last year
 
+

Time for a full inquiry

guardian.co.uk, Wednesday November 19 2008 00.01 GMT
The Guardian, Wednesday November 19 2008

More than five years after the event, how much does it matter that a retired law lord now believes the government's legal advice on the invasion of Iraq was unlawful? From one perspective the answer is: not very much. Seen from 2008, after all, the Iraq war is history. With the Iraqi government's backing this week, the troops will soon be on the way out. Chastened by the whole experience, no western leader is likely to go down the Bush-Blair route any time soon. Like it or not, the original advice was sincerely offered and sincerely acted on. And Lord Bingham is in any case no longer a lord of appeal. In short, his Grotius lecture this week may be a powerful piece of legal reasoning. But it is a footnote to a decision that cannot now be reversed.

Some of this scepticism is well-founded. But not all of it. In the first place, Lord Bingham is not just any old lawyer. He is the most senior judge of the modern era. He is regarded by many as its finest legal mind. Though Lord Bingham only retired a few weeks ago, he has been at the pinnacle of English law-making for a decade and a half and has clearly been pondering the war's legality for years. It may raise some eyebrows that he should be so quick to engage on this supremely divisive issue so soon after leaving the bench - but if the issue is so important, why not? The simple fact is that, when Lord Bingham speaks on the law, it is always a good idea to listen.

Just because it is now more than five years since the attorney general, Lord Goldsmith, advised that an invasion would be lawful, it does not follow that his advice or the decision are less controversial or momentous now than they were in 2003. It is hard to think of a more serious decision than one to go to war. Particularly in circumstances other than national self-defence, it is essential to know what is lawful and what is not. In a world increasingly and rightly regulated by international law, all nations need to be clear about the lawfulness of war and the obligation to obey that law.

Lord Bingham's conclusion that the Iraq invasion was "a serious violation of international law and the rule of law" - which ministers are required to uphold - has already been vigorously challenged by Lord Goldsmith and Jack Straw. Yet this is such a serious subject, with such immense implications for Britain's standing, that the argument cannot be allowed to rest there. When such senior figures of the legal establishment are at odds in this way, it enhances the case for a full public inquiry into the lessons of the Iraq war. That inquiry should have been established long ago. But when someone of Lord Bingham's stature says the war was unlawful, the case for such a scrutiny, already compelling, becomes irresistible.





 

69

South Tyneside Stop the War / 'Greens slam callous Miliband'

« on: October 28, 2008, 03:14:50 PM »

Greens slam callous Miliband

South Tyneside Green Party has labelled South Shields MP David Miliband as callous, after the part he played in ensuring that a 40-year injustice continues.

During the 1960s and 70s, the British Government evicted the people of the Chagos Islands in the Indian Ocean. The main island, Diego Garcia, was handed over to the United States government to be used as a military base.  US military personnel nicknamed it 'Fantasy Island' for its natural beauty.

Thousands of people, known as Chagossians, were dumped on the streets of Mauritius and have since fought in the courts to try and get their home back, winning the right to return in the High Court in 2006.

However, after a legal appeal to the Lords sponsored by Foreign Secretary David Miliband, the Law Lords ruled 3 to 2 that the Chagossians should remain in exile.

Green Party parliamentary candidate for South Shields Shirley Ford expressed her disgust at the ruling.

"David Miliband joins a long line of Foreign Secretaries who have worked to deny the Chagossian people their right to return to their home.

"He has admitted that the US base on Diego Garcia has been used for CIA 'extraordinary rendition flights'.  The treatment of the Chagossians illustrates that this government is craven to US interests, all under the excuse of the 'war on terror'.

"Recently we saw Mr Miliband replacing £50 which had been stolen from a charity tin.  Now we see him treating the victims of theft of their homeland with callous contempt.  'Ethical foreign policy' is clearly a distant memory for this morally bankrupt government.

"South Shields has a warm spirit and a big heart.  Mr Miliband had a chance to do something right for the Chagossians and let them return home.  He has failed the Chagossians, and the spirit of South Shields."