This
rather extraordinary war against terror is not
really a 'war', any more than the war against
obesity means that you can detain
people. The
IndependentLondon, Monday, July 5, 2004
Legality of Iraq
occupation 'flawed' By Marie Woolf, Chief Political
Correspondent 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, (right) 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
Guantánamo Bay. She said it violated the
Geneva Conventions to deny inmates in
Guantánamo 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. © 2004
Independent Digital (UK) Ltd -
Iraq resistance general: 'The
liberation of Baghdad is not far away'
|