Iraq: British Documents "2003 War Was Illegal" (Sengupta)

For years I have tracked the story of how the British Government, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, twisted and even created documents to declare that the military action against Iraq in 2003 was legal under international law.



It is an indication of how far we have supposedly moved beyond that war that almost no notice is paid any more to this issue. Yet it is still very much a live question. Kim Sengupta wrote for The Independent of London last week:

Documents about how the legal case for the Iraq war was formulated by the Blair government seven years ago were made public [last Wednesday], revealing the grave doubts of the Attorney General over impending military action.

The drafts of legal advice and letters sent to the Prime Minister by Lord Goldsmith had been kept secret despite repeated calls for them to be published. Yesterday they were released by the Chilcot Inquiry into the war, after the head of the Civil Service, Sir Gus O'Donnell, stated that the "long-standing convention" for such documents to be kept confidential had to be waived because the issue of the legality of the Iraq war had a "unique status".

It had been known that Lord Goldsmith had initially advised the government that an attack on Iraq would not be legal without a fresh United Nations resolution. However, just before the US-led invasion he presented a new set of opinions saying that a new resolution was not needed after all.

Tony Blair appeared to show his irritation with the warnings over military actions, saying in a handwritten note: "I just do not understand this." In another note, a Downing Street aide said: "We do not need further advice on this matter."

In the documents released yesterday, Lord Goldsmith repeatedly stated that an invasion without a fresh UN resolution would be illegal, and warned against using Saddam Hussein's supposed WMD (weapons of mass destruction) as a reason for attack. Two months later, in autumn 2002, Downing Street published a dossier that stressed the alleged WMD threat in an attempt to boost public support for war.

In a letter to Mr Blair on 30 July 2002, marked "Secret and Strictly personal – UK Eyes only", Lord Goldsmith stated: "In the absence of a fresh resolution by the Security Council which would at least involve a new determination of a material and flagrant breach [by Iraq] military action would be unlawful. Even if there were such a resolution, but one which did not explicitly authorise the use of force, it would remain highly debatable whether it legitimised military action – but without it the position is, in my view, clear."

In his letter, copied to the then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw, and Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon, the Attorney General warned that any form of military assistance offered to the US, however limited, such as "the use of UK bases, the provision of logistical or other support ... would all engage the UK's responsibility under international law. We would therefore need to be satisfied in all cases as to the legality of the use of force."

Lord Goldsmith continued: "The development of WMD is not in itself sufficient to indicate such imminence. On the basis of the material which I have been shown ... there would not be any grounds for regarding an Iraqi use of WMD as imminent."

Successive inquiries into the Iraq war, by Lord Hutton, Lord Butler and now Sir John Chilcot, have heard repeated claims that Lord Goldsmith was subsequently persuaded to change his advice into the legality of military action by Mr Blair and members of his government.

Read rest of article....

American Media Analysis: When is Torture Not Torture? (Hint: If the US is Involved....)

There has been a fuss over the last week over a study, pursued by students at Harvard University, that found:

"From the early 1930s until the modern story broke in 2004, the newspapers that covered waterboarding almost uniformly called the practice torture or implied it was torture....By contrast, from 2002‐2008, the studied newspapers almost never referred to waterboarding as torture....In addition, the newspapers are much more likely to call waterboarding torture if a country other than the United States is the perpetrator."

Perhaps the most striking finding of the study was that the apparent catalyst for a shift in terminology was the revelation in early 2004 that the US military and private contractors were abusing detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Bill Keller, the executive editor of The New York Times was so unsettled by the criticism that it put out a statement, “When using a word amounts to taking sides in a political dispute, our general practice is to supply the readers with the information to decide for themselves. Thus we describe the practice [waterboarding] vividly, and we point out that it is denounced by international covenants and in American tradition as a form of torture.”

Perhaps more provocatively, Keller indicated that the entire Harvard report was an unhelpful distraction: “I think this Kennedy School study — by focusing on whether we have embraced the politically correct term of art in our news stories — is somewhat misleading and tendentious.”

The conclusion of the study:

The results of this study demonstrate that there was a sudden, significant, shift in major print media’s treatment of waterboarding at the beginning of the 21st century.

The media’s modern coverage of waterboarding did not begin in earnest until 2004, when the first stories about abuses at Abu Ghraib were released. After this point, articles most often used words such as “harsh” or “coercive” to describe waterboarding or simply gave the practice no treatment,

rather than labeling it torture as they had done for the previous seven decades.

There is also a significant discrepancy between the point of view offered by news articles and opinion pieces published in these papers. Opinion pieces were much more likely to characterize waterboarding as torture, suggesting that the private opinion of the editors and contributors did not align with the formal face the papers were presenting in their objective reporting.

Yet what caused this change in waterboarding’s treatment over time? Our data does not give any specific reason for this shift, but merely points to the existence of this change in syntax. A piece published by the public editor of The NY Times, Clark Hoyt, suggests that these choices were made deliberately by journalists and their editors, perhaps in an effort to remain neutral in the debate going on in the U.S. If the classification of waterboarding as torture is unclear, Hoyt suggests, then it is irresponsible for journalists to preempt this debate by labeling it as such.

The willingness of the newspapers to call the practice torture prior to 2004 seems to refute this claim. According to the data, for almost a century before 2004 there was consensus within the print media that waterboarding was torture. Yet once reports of the use of waterboarding by the CIA and other abuses by the U.S. surfaced, this consensus no longer held, despite the fact that the editors themselves seem to have still been convinced that waterboarding was torture, often labeling it as such in their editorials.

The classification of waterboarding is not unclear; the current debate cannot be so divorced from its historical roots. The status quo ante was that waterboarding is torture, in American law, international law,20 and in the newspapers’ own words. Had the papers not changed their coverage, it would still have been called torture. By straying from that established norm, the newspapers imply disagreement with it, despite their claims to the contrary. In the context of their decades‐long practice, the newspaper’s sudden equivocation on waterboarding can hardly be termed neutral.

Read the full report....

The Latest from Iran (5 July): Talks and Conflicts

1800 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. An EA correspondent brings the news that Amir Aboutalebi, an advisor to Mir Hossein Mousavi, was released today. Aboutalebi was detained on 28 December in the post-Ashura wave of arrests.

1400 GMT: And now the approved set of male haircuts, courtesy of the Ministry of Islamic Guidance and Culture:

NEW Iran & Sanctions: Could Tehran’s Flights Be Grounded?
NEW Iran Analyses: A Rafsanjani-Khamenei Deal on Universities Crisis? (Siavashi and Verde)
Iran Special: The Green Movement, the Regime, and “the West” (Nabavi)
Iran Thought: Maybe The Robot Can Be President
The Latest from Iran (4 July): Who’s in Charge?

1350 GMT: Rafsanjani "I Heart Khamenei". Rumour: Supreme Leader and former President Hashemi Rafsanjani meet, strike deal for Ayatollah Khamenei to limit the universities crisis with Rafsanjani praising the Supreme Leader.

Fact: Rafsanjani in Khabar Online --- "Not a day goes by where my regard for Ayatollah Khamenei is less than the previous day".

1345 GMT: Make the Connection. Less than 48 hours after we noted that the brothers Arash and Kamiar Alaei, two doctors prominent in the treatment of HIV/AIDS in Iran, have entered their third year of detention, we find this: "Increase of Sexual Transmission of AIDS in the Country".

1340 GMT: Grounding Iran? We have posted a separate feature with developing news that sanctions may be grounding Iran Air flights.

0935 GMT: Warnings. Peyke Iran claims that 10 daily newspapers have been warned because they published member of Parliament Ali Motahari's critique of the Government's subsidy reduction plans.

And in the academic world, Minister of Science and Higher Education Kamran Daneshjoo has allegedly said that students "opposed to the system" do not have a right to work".

0930 GMT: Revolutionary Guard Takes Power? Rah-e-Sabz has a lengthy article claiming that the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps is taking over Iran's energy sector.

0925 GMT: Parliament v. President. The Majlis Research Center has declared that 37% of the laws for Ahmadinejad's 5th Development Plan are "unclear".

0920 GMT: Where's Mahmoud? Remember, President Ahmadinejad is opening the new steel project in northwestern Iran (see 0745 GMT). Here's his dramatic annoucement:

"Sanctions won't hurt Iran."
0910 GMT: Press Un-Freedom. The Guardian of London features an interview with photojournalist Javad Moghimi, who took one of the iconic photographs of the 2009 protest, about the plight of journalists in Iran:

Since the June elections and following the demonstrations in December after the holiday of Ashura, two of his colleagues have been arrested, Moghimi says. His immediate boss, Majid Saidi, is on bail awaiting trial, charged with activities against national security and taking photographs of protesters. He says his close friend Masoud Lavasani, a political correspondent for Fars News, is in prison on hunger strike.

"He is going through hell," says Moghimi. "When I hear his news I get very upset and I get a lump in my throat, because ... I don't know what the future holds for news reporters and my friends in Iran.

"Their crime was to take photographs of the protesters and the demonstrations. If the Islamic Republic of Iran is able to arrest a photojournalist charged with activities against national security or taking photographs of the protesters, it is a joke to say we have freedom of speech, because there is no freedom as long as they arrest people for the crime of taking photos of demonstrations."

0900 GMT: Sanctions Front. Kazem Jalali,  spokesperson for Parliament's National Security and Foreign Policy Committee, has warned, "Although international circles are not impartial in dealing with lawsuits filed by nations, Iran reserves the right to lodge a complaint against the US for imposing unilateral sanctions.

Jalali and other Iranian officials are specifically mentioning Washington's ban on sales of aircraft fuel to Iran.

0800 GMT: The Battle Within. A series of reports on the conflict within the establishment....

Hojatoleslam Banaei claims that the distributors of flyers against Ali Larijani after Friday Prayers in Qom have been identified: "there is a current in the country, which doesn't want calmness to be established in society".

Ali Asgari, the Parliamentary liaison of the Expediency Council, has belittled the challenge: "The radical current is a handful [of people], you can transport them with a minibus."

And the universities crisis rolls along: key member of Parliament Ali Motahari has warned the Supreme Council for Cultural Revolution against intervention, as its main duty is "policy-making, not legislation". Kazem Delkhosh has asserted that the gathering of Basiji in front of the Majlis to demonstrate against the Parliament's bill on Islamic Azad University, was "organised".

In contrast, Jomhouri Eslami notes the reports of a Khamenei intervention, via a meeting with Hashemi Rafsanjani (see our separate analyses), and says the quarrel has been settled and all is business as usual.

Rah-e-Sabz takes a look over the political terrain and declares that "rifts in the hardliner camp are no longer hidden".
0755 GMT: Political Prisoner Watch. Advar News reports that journalist Masoud Lavasani, detained for more than nine months, has been granted a temporary release.

0745 GMT: Economy Watch. Press TV headlines the opening of a "key steel project" in Bonab in northwestern Iran, presided over by President Ahmadinejad. The website claims more than $170 million of finance with "800 job opportunities".

The ceremony comes a week after the opening of another steel complex in Natanz.

0715 GMT: We begin this morning with two contrasting analyses of yesterday's story of a meeting between the Supreme Leader and former President Hashemi Rafsanjani to resolve the dispute between Parliament and President over control of Islamic Azad University.

Meanwhile....

Iran and Sanctions

Looks like a disruption in the normal Ahmadinejed Government line that sanctions will have no effect on Iran's economy: Heshmatollah Falahatpisheh, the new speaker of the National Security Council, has said that if sanctions are implemented, the country will enter a period of severe difficulties.

Parliament to Dismiss Minister?

Member of Parliament Mehrdad Lahouti says that the Majlis is preparing steps for the dismissal of Sadegh Khalilian, the Minister of Agriculture

Political Prisoner Watch

Aftab News reports that Tehran Prosecutor General Abbas Jafari Doulatabadi has met for "several hours" with high-profile detainees, includig Isa Saharkhiz, Ahmad Zeidabadi, Mansour Osanloo, Masoud Moradi, Mehdi Mahmoudian, and Davoud Soleimani.

Palestine & Israel: The Situation on the Eve of Obama-Netanyahu Talks

On the eve of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's visit to Washington, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas has reportedly proposed the creation of a Palestinian state within the 1967 borders, with a possible land swap of 2.3 percent of the West Bank.

The PA would receive land of comparable size and quality in the southern West Bank as well as a corridor between the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. Abbas also reportedly proposed the easing of Palestinian demands over East Jerusalem to permit the Jewish Quarter of the Old City as well as the Western Wall to remain under Israeli sovereignty. The remainder of the Old City would become the capital of a Palestinian state but would be open to the adherents of all faiths.

Israel-Turkey Special: How Serious is Ankara’s Threat to Cut Relations? (Yenidunya)
Israel & the US: Who is Offering Concessions at Home and Abroad? (Yenidunya)

However, on Saturday, chief Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat denied that Abbas had condoned these proposals. Dismissing reports of progress between the Palestinians and the Israelis, Erekat said that the American intention to upgrade current peace discussions to direct talks has been failing due to Israel's actions. He continued:

Israel refuses to give up the building in the settlements and to agree to renew the negotiations that were impeded by this stumbling block and, therefore, has failed in the intention to transform the proximity talks into direct contacts.

If Abbas was supporiting the reported offer, similar to the Camp David proposal of the Palestinian side in 2000, it matches Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu's alleged suggestion to Obama, asking for the approval of the Israeli rule and the continuation of but limitation of construction in large settlements in the West Bank.

The Palestinian side and the Americans may realise that the current pressure on Israel to continue the freeze onn construction in the West Bank settlements is not sustainable as settlers' friction with Palestinians are increasing. Palestinians might be preparing for a soft turn if Washington approves.

However, the core issues are going to be the refugee problem and, especially, the status of Jerusalem. Palestinians are insistent on East Jerusalem as the capital of a Palestinian state and on rule over the Temple Mount while giving the authority of the Jewish Quarter and the Western Wall to the Israeli government. This is likely to be the key to a move to direct talks.

And Hamas? Well, the flotilla crisis is on hold now, since the international community gave consent to Israel's internal probe and West Jerusalem's officials are to announce the new and relatively limited blacklist of goods prohibited entry into Gaza. The Israeli government has successfully reduced the "problem" with Hamas to the status of captured Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit. If Washington steps back and the Palestinians pursue a practical solution, the process will continue without Hamas as long as it does not change its strategy.

UPDATED Iran & Sanctions: Could Tehran's Flights Be Grounded?

UPDATE 1740 GMT: Britain's largest oil company BP has instructed its European operations not to refuel Iranian airlines "due to a decision from the U.S. Congress".

UPDATE 1530 GMT: Press TV has now posted a story which repeats the claim that Britain, Germany, the UAE, and Kuwait have suspended supplies of fuel.

Press TV adds denials from German'sTransport Ministry and Abu Dhabi airports that there was any ban; however, as EA readers have noted, this does not preclude a cutoff by private suppliers.

---

The German Bureau first alerted us to this potentially significant story this morning. A key pro-Government member of Parliament, Kazem Jalali, had spoken of court action against the US for its unilateral sanctions against Iran. Jalali specifically noted the American threat to suspend sales of aircraft fuel (see our morning updates).

Deep in the story was the note that the United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Germany had followed the American lead and halted fuel supplies.

Hours later came the confirmation, via Iranian Students News Agency and then relayed outside Iran, from the secretary of Iranian Airlines Union: "Since last week, after the passing of the unilateral law by America and the sanctions against Iran, airports in England, Germany, the UAE have refused to give fuel to Iranian planes."

Peyke Iran followed by reporting that an Iran Air flight from Frankfurt, Germany had been postponed and might be cancelled due to the fuel shortage.

And now our German Bureau adds this bit of information: on Sunday Iran Air cancelled a flight to Hamburg, Germany.

Watch this (air)space for developments....