The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.

[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [casi] US denial of intelligence to UN

WMD or no WMD, the U.S. wants to get rid of Saddam. So, the U.S. would
indeed be very concerned about the safety of her sources. Saddam must know
that a very effective way of exposing spies is to set up phony factories for
the production of WMD and then compartmentalize the knowledge about these
things. If the C.I.A. tips Blix about such a site then that would be a
double victory for Saddam:

1)  Spies exposed.

2)  U.S. intelligence discredited.


----- Original Message -----
From: k hanly <>
To: <>
Sent: Monday, February 17, 2003 6:58 PM
Subject: [casi] US denial of intelligence to UN

[ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ]

There follows a letter I have sent to a local newspaper. I assume the UK
also would claim to have intelligence of Iraqs weapons of mass destruction.
Has the UK provided this intelligence to the UN?

Cheers, Ken Hanly

PS. If anyone knows of other reasons for not providing this intelligence I
would be interesting in knowing what they are.
Why does the US deny the UN relevant intelligence?

In his report on February 14th Hans Blix noted that the US continues to deny
the UN evidence it claims to have on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
Inspectors depend upon intelligence sources to guide them to locations where
weapons might be hidden. Countries are obligated to provide intelligence to
the UN. The US claims to have incontrovertible evidence that Iraq has such
weapons and yet refuses to turn that evidence over to the UN. Recent
accounts of plans for the invasion note that special forces will attack
depots suspected of containing biological and chemical weapons. If the US
really wanted the inspectors to do their job and disarm Iraq why would it
not inform the UN now of the location of those depots?

The only answer that I have seen is that the US does not want to compromise
intelligence that is significant for any mililtary campaign. But why would a
military campaign be necessary if the inspectors knew where the weapons of
mass destruction were located? They could simply destroy them and no
military campaign would be necessary. This then is no answer at all but it
gives a clue to the reality of the situation. The US plans a war on Iraq
with out without UN approval. This would explain the inconsistency. Unless
the inconsistency can be explained otherwise the explanation would seem to
best fit the facts. However, there is plenty of direct evidence that this is
the correct explanation.

By the summer of 2002 plans for a war against Iraq were well underway. The
question was not whether to go to war with Iraq but what sort of attack
there should be. Of course officials always speak of the plans as being
developed in case there is a war. But there are not just plans. There has
been an active buildup to the point where everything is ready for an
invasion. Operatives are already in northern Iraq and targets in the no-fly
zones have been expanded to cover virtually anything that could be used as a
defence against invading planes. As long as this buildup was taking place
the US could let inspectors do their job since it was too early for a
successful attack. Now the forces are ready there will be war UN resolution
or not unless there is some drastic change in Iraq that somehow forces the
US to reconsider.

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
To unsubscribe, visit
To contact the list manager, email
All postings are archived on CASI's website:

[Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]