"Oelewapper" wrote in message
...
GREENPEACE.ORG.UK STATEMENT ON IRAQ WHISTLE-BLOWER CASE:
Government faces further headache over legal case for Iraq war
Last edited: 28-02-2004
Whistle-blower case has 'huge implications' for Greenpeace protesters

Army chiefs feared Iraq war illegal just days before start

· Attorney-General forced to rewrite legal advice
· Specialist unit dedicated to spying on UN revealed

Britain's Army chiefs refused to go to war in Iraq amid fears over its
legality just days before the British and American bombing campaign was
launched, The Observer can today reveal.

The explosive new details about military doubts over the legality of the
invasion are detailed in unpublished legal documents in the case of
Katharine Gun, the intelligence officer dramatically freed last week after
Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, dropped charges against her of
breaking the Official Secrets Act.

The disclosure came as it also emerged that Goldsmith was forced hastily to
redraft his legal advice to Tony Blair to give an 'unequivocal' assurance to
the armed forces that the conflict would not be illegal.

Refusing to commit troops already stationed in Kuwait, senior military
leaders were adamant that war could not begin until they were satisfied that
neither they nor their men could be tried. Some 10 days later, Britain and
America began the campaign.

Goldsmith also wrote to Blair at the end of January voicing concerns that
the war might be illegal without a second resolution from the United
Nations. Opposition MPs seized on The Observer's revelations last night,
accusing Goldsmith of caving in to political pressure from the Prime
Minister to change his legal advice on the eve of war.

Senior Whitehall sources involved in putting together critical legal advice
on the war told The Observer that Goldsmith was originally 'sitting on the
fence' and that his initial advice was 'prevaricating'. This was 'tightened'
up only days before the conflict began after concerns were raised by Sir
Michael Boyce, the then Chief of Defence Staff, who told senior ministers of
his worries. It is believed that Boyce demanded an unequivocal statement
that the invasion of Iraq was lawful. It is understood that it was only
after seeing Goldsmith's final legal advice, given days before the outbreak
of war, that Boyce gave his approval.

Without this legal reassurace, military leaders and their troops could have
laid themselves open to charges of war crimes. At the time, UK troops were
already in Kuwait poised for an invasion.

Last week, Goldsmith controversially agreed to drop the Government's
prosecution of the former GCHQ whistleblower Katharine Gun. Her defence had
demanded documents relating to his legal advice, including communications
with the Prime Minister.

Although Goldsmith denied his decision to drop the case was political,
critics of the war believe the Government was desperate to prevent these
details from being revealed in open court.

Menzies Campbell, Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman, said: 'These
allegations go to the very heart of the Government's case for war, and
inevitably its credibility. I have no doubt whatever that if Parliament had
been told these things, the Government would not have achieved its majority
and been unable to go to war. Public opinion, already deeply divided, would
have swung overwhelmingly against the Government.'

Opposition MPs have demanded a statement in the Commons from the Prime
Minister and will redouble the pressure for an explanation. The revelations
will also increase pressure for the Butler inquiry, set up by the Prime
Minister into intelli gence in the run-up to the war, to study the Gun case
and subsequent revelations. It will take evidence in private.

Last night former Cabinet Minister Clare Short told The Observer that she
knew of military doubts over the legality the war: 'I was told at the
highest level in the department that the military were saying they wouldn't
go, whatever the PM said, with out the Attorney-General's advice. The
question is: was the AG lent on?

'This was a very personal operation by Tony Blair. The Attorney-General is a
friend of Tony's, put in the Lords by Tony and made Attorney-General by
Tony.'

The Observer has also established that GCHQ, the Government's top-secret
surveillance centre, has a specialist unit dedicated to spying on the UN.
The revelation will strengthen claims that the bugging of Britain's
diplomatic allies at the UN was routine and is likely to trigger a fresh
international furore over the legality of Britain's spying operations
abroad.

The former Chilean ambassador to the UN, Juan Gabriel Valdes, said last
night: 'All I can say is what I said at the time when asked if I had
information about spying on Chile and I said yes, it has been proved.

'It [eavesdropping] was one more element of tension during some very tense
weeks. Nobody was very surprised. But it is one thing not to be surprised
and another to do clearly illegal things.'

Gun leaked a top-secret email published in The Observer last March revealing
a joint British-American operation to spy on the UN in the run-up to war.
She claimed she acted to prevent the loss of human life in an illegal war.

The political furore continued as Short's political future remains in the
balance, with the Prime Minister reserving a final decision until he has
seen the round of interviews she has planned for this weekend. 'Everyone has
talked about the fact that they don't want her to be a martyr, but of course
the only difficulty is that we are in her hands - what will she say
tomorrow?' said one senior party figure.

However, it remains highly unlikely that she will face an organised attempt
to unseat her, because of the months of upheaval it would cause in the
Labour party. 'The pain of extraction might finish off the patient,' said
one backbencher far from loyal to Short.

Downing Street last night refused to comment on the allegations. Blair's
spokesman also refused to say whether the White House had been consulted
over the dropping of the Gun case, despite growing conviction at Westminster
that it would have been inconceivable for the Foreign Office not to have
taken its closest ally's views into consideration.

Despite Blair's refusal to give a statement to the Commons, the Government
is unlikely to escape further questioning. Both Jack Straw, the Foreign
Secretary, and Geoff Hoon, the Defence Secretary, are already due to answer
questions next week while the Home Secretary, David Blunkett, will be
grilled by a joint Commons inquiry into homeland security. Labour and
Opposition MPs have also tabled a string of written questions.

Martin Bright, Antony Barnett and Gaby Hinsliff
Sunday February 29, 2004
The Observer


Whistle-blower case has 'huge implications' for Greenpeace protesters

Tony Blair faces further embarrassment in less than a fortnight, when
fourteen Greenpeace volunteers appear in court on charges relating to an
anti-war protest. Their case has taken on great significance since the
Crown
Prosection Service (CPS) claimed the case against Katherine Gun was
dropped
because they could not "disprove the defence of necessity" -- that is to
say, they could not counter the defence that her actions were justified to
save lives.

The so-called Marchwood Fourteen occupied tanks at the Southampton
military
port in February last year. Throughout their case the defendants - all
Greenpeace volunteers - have argued that their actions were necessary to
prevent loss of life. With the CPS now saying they could not have
disproved
such a defence in the Gun case, Greenpeace lawyers wonder how the CPS will
proceed against the fourteen.

In a further development Greenpeace has today written to the CPS asking it
for the Attorney-General's full advice to government on the legality of
the
war. Lawyers for the group claim access to the full advice is vital if the
defendants are to be allowed a proper defence. Greenpeace has given the
CPS
24 hours to produce the full advice, otherwise the group will renew its
request for the advice in court on the first day of the trial, set for
March
9th.

Greenpeace legal adviser Kate Harrison said, "The protesters thought the
war
was illegal. We think it is essential for a fair trial that they see the
full Attorney General's legal advice and the basis on which it was made."

"Since the Katharine Gun trial it would appear that the Attorney General
probably thought at the time of the protest that the war would be unlawful
and that the Foreign Office and other advisors thought so too."

The case against the fourteen will be held at Southampton Magistrate's
court
from March 9th.

Further information
Greenpeace opposed the war in Iraq and campaigned actively to prevent it.
We
joined the Stop the War coalition and made submissions to the Foreign
Affairs Select Committee on the illegality of the war, see
http://www.the-hutton-inquiry.org.uk...0219to0222.pdf

For more information contact the Greenpeace press office
on 020 7865 8255 or 07801 212967 or 07801 212968
http://www.greenpeace.org.uk/Multime...eport/6206.pdf