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]
News, 10-17/9/03 (4) BURIAL OF THE PRETEXT * AP Staffer fact-checks Powell's UN speech - key claims didn't hold up * Intelligence team criticised for false impression of Iraq's WMD * Report reveals Blair overruled terror warning * No sexing up, please * Iraq weapons report shelved * Iraqi scientists say N-programme ended long ago * MI6 chief defends his spies * Blix: Iraq bluffed about WMD THE PAST * Iraq's secret environmental horror * US army's detectives scour Iraqi earth for mass graves * U.S. indicts son of Iraqi ex-diplomat in New York * Powell pays emotional visit to Halabja * Former Iraqi defense minister urged to surrender COMPENSATION SCAM(S) * Judge Denies Iraq Funds for 9/11 Victims * Iraq wants relief from Kuwait compensation * Lawsuit Alleges al-Qaida Ties With Iraq BURIAL OF THE PRETEXT http://www.editorandpublisher.com/editorandpublisher/headlines/article_displ ay.jsp?vnu_content_id=1971092 * AP Staffer Fact-Checks Powell's UN Speech Key Claims Didn't Hold Up Editor and Publisher, 9th September Last month, Charles J. Hanley, special correspondent for the Associated Press and winner of a Pulitzer Prize in 2000, wrote a devastating 2,500-word critique of claims made by Secretary of State Colin Powell in his influential Feb. 5 speech to the United Nations on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction. In a column published this week, E&P Editor Greg Mitchell calls this speech the single most important moment in the march to war -- and charges that the media's unquestioning endorsement of Powell's assertions made invasion inevitable. Here are brief, edited excerpts from the Hanley article (available in its entirety at Philly.com). ALUMINUM TUBES: Powell said "most United States experts" believed aluminum tubes sought by Iraq were intended for use as centrifuge cylinders for enriching uranium for nuclear bombs. Energy Department experts and Powell's own State Department intelligence bureau had already dissented from this CIA view... No centrifuge program has been reported found. REVIVED NUCLEAR PROGRAM: "We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons program," Powell said. On July 24, Foreign Minister Ana Palacio of Spain, a U.S. ally on Iraq, said there was "no evidence, no proof" of a nuclear bomb program before the war. No such evidence has been reported found since the invasion. DECONTAMINATION VEHICLES: At two sites, Powell said trucks were "decontamination vehicles" associated with chemical weapons. Nothing has been reported found since... Norwegian inspector Jorn Siljeholm told AP on March 19 that "decontamination vehicles" U.N. teams were led to by U.S. information invariably turned out to be water or fire trucks. BIOWEAPONS TRAILERS: Powell said defectors had told of "biological weapons factories" on trucks and in train cars. He displayed artists' conceptions of such vehicles. After the invasion, U.S. authorities said they found two such truck trailers in Iraq, and the CIA said it concluded they were part of a bioweapons production line. But no trace of biological agents was found on them, Iraqis said the equipment made hydrogen for weather balloons, and State Department intelligence balked at the CIA's conclusion. DESERT WEAPONS: According to Powell, unidentified sources said the Iraqis dispersed rocket launchers and warheads holding biological weapons to the western desert, hiding them in palm groves and moving them every one to four weeks. Nothing has been reported found, after months of searching by U.S. and Australian troops in the nearly empty desert. ANTHRAX: Powell noted Iraq had declared it produced 8,500 liters of the biological agent anthrax before 1991. None has been "verifiably accounted for," he said. No anthrax has been reported found, post-invasion. The Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), in a confidential report last September (five months before the Powell speech) said that although it believed Iraq had biological weapons it didn't know their nature, amounts, or condition. UNMANNED AIRCRAFT: Powell showed video of an Iraqi F-1 Mirage jet spraying "simulated anthrax." He said four such spray tanks were unaccounted for, and Iraq was building small unmanned aircraft "well suited for dispensing chemical and biological weapons." According to U.N. inspectors' reports, the video predated the 1991 Gulf War, when the Mirage was said to have been destroyed, and three of the four spray tanks were destroyed in the 1990s. No small drones or other planes with chemical-biological capability have been reported found in Iraq since the invasion. FOUR TONS OF VX: Powell said Iraq produced four tons of the nerve agent VX. Powell didn't note that most of that was destroyed in the 1990s under U.N. supervision. No VX has been reported found since the invasion. Experts at Britain's International Institute of Strategic Studies said any pre-1991 VX most likely would have degraded anyway. 'EMBEDDED' CAPABILITY: "We know that Iraq has embedded key portions of its illicit chemical weapons infrastructure within its legitimate civilian industry," Powell said. No "chemical weapons infrastructure" has been reported found. The recently-disclosed DIA report of last September said there was "no reliable information" on where Iraq might have established chem-warfare facilities. CHEMICAL AGENTS: "Our conservative estimate is that Iraq today has a stockpile of between 100 and 500 tons of chemical-weapons agent," Powell said. Powell gave no basis for the assertion, and no such agents have been reported found. That same DIA report had reported "no reliable information on whether Iraq is producing and stockpiling chemical weapons." CHEMICAL WEAPONS: "Saddam Hussein has chemical weapons...And we have sources who tell us that he recently has authorized his field commanders to use them," Powell said. No such weapons were used in the war and none was reported found. CHEMICAL WARHEADS: Powell said 122-mm "chemical" warheads found by U.N. inspectors in January might be the "tip of an iceberg." The warheads were empty, a fact Powell didn't note. No others have been reported found since the invasion. SCUDS, NEW MISSILES: Powell said "intelligence sources" indicate Iraq had a secret force of up to a few dozen prohibited Scud-type missiles. He said it also had a program to build newer, 600-mile-range missiles. No Scud-type missiles have been reported found. No program for long-range missiles has been reported. http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c =StoryFT&cid=1059479770643&p=1012571727159 * INTELLIGENCE TEAM CRITICISED FOR FALSE IMPRESSION OF IRAQ'S WMD by Mark Huband, Security Correspondent Financial Times, 12th September The joint intelligence committee was criticised for allowing imprecise information to create a false impression about the nature of the threat from Iraq's weapons on mass destruction. The JIC brings together the heads of MI6, the Secret Intelligence Service; MI5, the Security Service; GCHQ, the government communications service; the Defence Intelligence Staff, and senior officials. At the Hutton inquiry last month John Scarlett, JIC chairman, said that he and not Downing Street had "ownership" of the dossier. Consequently he must take ownership of the criticism. The parliamentary intelligence and security committee sees the JIC's failure to explain adequately and precisely convey the intelligence information used in its September dossier as a flaw in the process that led to war. In its 57-page report on the credibility of the intelligence and assessments used by the government to justify the invasion of Iraq, it rejected suggestions there had been political interference in the work of the intelligence agencies. But the thrust of the ISC report is that the government could and should have made its case for war more clearly and accurately, rather than that the intelligence was weak. In several references to the work of the JIC, the ISC details the shortcomings of the process whereby intelligence analysed by the JIC assessment staff was then presented to the public in the September 24 dossier. While the report stresses the difficulty of gathering reliable intelligence in Iraq during Saddam Hussein's rule, it says that on the contentious issue of whether Iraq could launch weapons of mass destruction within 45 minutes of an order being given, "the JIC assessment did not precisely reflect the intelligence" provided by MI6. It is critical of the JIC's failure to make clear in the dossier that 45 minutes referred to battlefield chemical and biological weapons, and not longer-range WMD. "The omission of the context and assessment allowed speculation as to its exact meaning. This was unhelpful to understanding of the issue," it said. The report finds fault in the failure to explain in the text of the dossier that the intelligence material regarding Iraq's chemical and biological capacity was based on facts and deductions in which there were varying degrees of confidence among intelligence officials. Citing a dossier claim that Iraq "continued to produce chemical and biological weapons", the ISC report says the phrasing "could give the impression that Saddam was actively producing both chemical and biological weapons and significant amounts of agents". "However, the JIC did not know what had been produced and in what quantities - it had assessed, based on intelligence, that production had taken place. We believe that this uncertainty should have been highlighted to give a balanced view of Saddam's chemical and biological capacity." The committee recommends that "the way intelligence material is used to inform the public needs to be reviewed . . It is vital that the JIC's and the [security] agencies' credibility and effectiveness are not degraded or diminished by the publication of their product". http://www.guardian.co.uk/guardianpolitics/story/0,3605,1040391,00.html * REPORT REVEALS BLAIR OVERRULED TERROR WARNING by Richard Norton-Taylor and Michael White The Guardian, 12th September Tony Blair was warned on the eve of war by his intelligence chiefs that an invasion of Iraq would increase the danger of terrorist attacks, which they considered by far the greatest threat to western interests. The warning is disclosed in a report by parliament's intelligence committee which contains fresh criticism of the dossier on Iraq's banned weapons programme which the government used to make its case for action against Iraq. It says that last September intelligence chiefs distorted the threat posed by Saddam Hussein - mainly by the sin of omission - but clears Downing Street of "sexing up" the dossier and concludes that ministers did not mislead parliament. Yesterday's report discloses that in February this year, a month before the invasion of Iraq, Whitehall's joint intelligence committee (JIC) warned that "al-Qaida and associated groups continued to represent by far the greatest threat to western interests, and that threat would be heightened by military action against Iraq". The intelligence chiefs added: "Any collapse of the Iraqi regime would increase the risk of chemical and biological warfare technology or agents finding their way into the hands of terrorists, including al-Qaida." The MPs' committee reveals that it discussed the risk with Mr Blair. He agreed there was "obviously a danger that in attacking Iraq you ended up provoking the very thing you were trying to avoid". However, he added: "You had to ask the question, 'Could you really, as a result of that fear, leave the possibility that in time this developed into a nexus between terrorism and WMD in any event?'" The prime minister continued: "This is where you've just got to make your judgment about this. But this is my judgment and it remains my judgment and I suppose time will tell whether it's true or it's not true." The committee's report criticises the September dossier for failing to admit the paucity of hard information about Iraq's banned weapons programme and for making claims out of context. It says the use of the phrase "continued to produce chemical and biological weapons" in the dossier and its foreword, signed by Mr Blair, could give a misleading impression. The JIC "did not know what had been produced and in what quantities", the report says. It did not know "precisely which munitions could be deployed from where to where". Saddam was not considered a current or imminent threat to Britain - the most likely chemical and biological munitions to be used against western forces were battlefield weapons and not strategic, longer-range, ones. "This should have been highlighted in the dossier," the parliamentary committee says. It says the dossier should also have highlighted the point that the claim that Iraqi forces could deploy chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes of an order also referred only to short-range, battlefield, weapons. "The omission of the context and assessment allowed speculation as to its exact meaning. This was unhelpful to an understanding of this issue." The 45-minute claim - mentioned four times in the dossier, including, in the strongest language, in the foreword - is at the heart of the row between the government and the BBC reporter Andrew Gilligan. In its overall judgment on the credibility of the September dossier, the committee said: "The jury is still out on the accuracy of the intelligence, the assessments, and therefore the dossier." Geoff Hoon, the defence secretary, and senior defence officials also come under criticism for their "unhelpful and potentially misleading" lack of candour about dissent within the defence intelligence service. Though Mr Hoon never denied there had been dissent among his intelligence staff, the committee was "disturbed" to discover that he had ordered his officials not to tell the committee about written complaints from two intelligence officials. The committee got to know about them only after they were disclosed to the Hutton inquiry. The Tories instantly called for Mr Hoon's resignation. "It is absolutely clear that Geoff Hoon's position is quite untenable," said Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith. However, Ann Taylor, chair of the committee, said that "at no point in this document do we call for his resignation". "He did not tell us lies, he told us there had been a dispute," Tory MP James Arbuthnot said. Later in the Commons Mr Hoon said he had "no intention whatsoever other than to be open and straightforward" with the MPs' committee over the Iraqi dossier. "I regret any misunderstanding that might have arisen." Downing Street will be comforted by other key findings in the ISC report. "The dossier was not 'sexed up' by Alastair Campbell or anyone else," it says, rebutting a central allegation of the initial BBC broadcast that prompted the row. The committee "accepts" that there was no political pressure placed on John Scarlett, chairman of the JIC, who produced the dossier. One of five Labour members on the nine-member committee, Kevin Baron, said: "Do not look for any deep conspiracy theory because we could not find it and we did look." Mr Campbell may be in the clear, but Mr Hoon, Mr Blair and John Scarlett are not. The MPs' report did not pass a verdict on whether or not it was right to invade Iraq. Five of its members voted for war, four - including Liberal Democrat MP Alan Beith - voted against, and they sidestepped that issue to ensure a unanimous report. The unanimous report appears to conflict with evidence to the Hutton inquiry, notably over the claim that no one "sexed up" the dossier. The inquiry has heard how the language was strengthened, albeit with Mr Scarlett's blessing. http://observer.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,6903,1041576,00.html * NO SEXING UP, PLEASE by Nick Cohen The Observer, 14th September The BBC story which began the hysterical confrontations which led to the suicide of David Kelly was a story in the pure meaning of the word. Even after it has been discredited, you can feel its emotional force. Tony Blair arrives at Downing Street promising to clean up the corruption of the old Conservative regime and bring in a new politics. At the beginning, only a few cynics notice that Blair achieved power by the use of spin. As the years pass, the ranks of the doubters grow. But Blair has a winning formula and is constitutionally incapable of changing it. He determines to commit an act of breathtaking audacity and spin Britain into a war. Honest spies warn him that he mustn't mislead Parliament and the public, but, blinded by his past success, he orders his sinister henchman, Alastair Campbell, to instruct the intelligence services to 'sex-up' the dossier on Saddam Hussein's arsenal. When the BBC blows the whistle, Blair's government falls apart. The Prime Minister's reputation is destroyed by the spin which created him. The story had a classical appeal. What the Today programme offered was a Shakespearean narrative. The tragic hero has a fatal flaw. His vaulting ambition produces hubris and then, with a satisfyingly inevitability, nemesis. The intelligence services are cast in the role of Cordelia: they tell the truth to a man who must listen if he is to avoid calamity, but refuses to listen because he can't escape his fate. All sides now accept that the story was compelling but false. John Scarlett, the chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, had 'ownership' of the dossier and denies absolutely that Campbell forced him to exaggerate the threat. No one has unearthed evidence to contradict him. If you doubt me, note how John Humphrys no longer tries to defend Today's reporting but instead shouts down Ministers who point out his programme's mistake. Unless there is a sensational twist, Lord Hutton will conclude that neither Campbell nor any other political appointee forced the intelligence services to include the claim that Iraq could launch chemical or biological weapons in 45 minutes in its dossier. But the fact remains that Iraq didn't have chemical or biological weapons to launch in 45 minutes or 45 hours or 45 days. It seems very unlikely that it had them at all, other than in penny packets. One of the most murderous tyrants on the planet wouldn't have accepted defeat without firing everything he had at his enemies. Saddam went down without the coalition troops catching a whiff of mustard gas. He couldn't own up to his weakness and readmit UN weapons inspectors before an invading army arrived on his borders, because the fear of being poisoned was one of many gruesome reasons to think again he could offer to Iraqis who dreamed of a revolution. The Hutton inquiry and last week's report by Parliament's Intelligence Committee show that the role of the intelligence services was more like that of Iago or the witches in Macbeth. Far from restraining the fatally flawed PM, they egged him on. That last sentence needs to be qualified a little. There were many in junior- and middle ranking positions in the intelligence services who were uneasy with the dossier. Brian Jones, the retired analyst from the Defence Intelligence Staff, told Hutton that he and his colleagues had concluded that 'there was no evidence that significant production had taken place either of chemical warfare agents or chemical weapons'. Whatever the controversies about what he did or didn't say to journalists, it's clear that Dr Kelly held a broadly similar view. Meanwhile, the Intelligence Committee found that Scarlett and his colleagues were prepared to tell the Prime Minister that an invasion of Iraq would increase the danger of an Islamic fundamentalist attack, news he didn't want to hear. But on the question of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the senior civil servants and Blair's political advisers were as one. The Hutton inquiry has shown that the old distinctions between the two become meaningless when you get to the top of the Blair administration. If you were to black out the names on the documents Hutton has posted on the inquiry website, readers would be hard-pressed to know whether they were from civil servants or New Labour advisers. Take the warning written a week before the dossier's publication that 'we will need to make it clear in launching the document that we do not claim that we have evidence that he [Saddam] is an imminent threat'. It reads as if it's from a sober civil servant who was anxious to restrain political appointees from going too far. In fact, it was delivered by Jonathan Powell, Blair's political appointee. The round-robin email sent which implored the espionage bureaucracy to look under sofas and behind filing cabinets for any scrap of information which might bolster the government's case reads as if it has been sent by a political appointee anxious to prod cautious civil servants into doing their utmost to help the Prime Minister. With an air of jovial desperation, the author accepts that the recipients have 'been around at least some of these buoys before' but none the less is making 'a last call for any items of intelligence' on the Iraqi nuclear and chemical programmes. As it turns out, the plea for one last heave wasn't from Campbell or Powell but an intelligence bureaucrat determined to pull out all the stops to help Number 10. The men around Blair share another characteristic - they weren't elected by anyone. At no point has Hutton found evidence of Blair calling in his senior Cabinet colleagues and inviting them to tell him frankly if he was making the right decision in releasing the dossier or going for a bare-knuckle fight with the BBC. With the exception of Geoff Hoon, who was little more than a messenger boy, and Jack Straw, who has nimbly skipped away from the débcle, decisions were taken by men whose position depended entirely on the favour of the King. As for Parliament, there were no sadder sights at the first round of the Hutton inquiry's hearings than Donald Anderson and Andrew MacKinlay from the Foreign Affairs Committee. Both described how they couldn't call the witnesses Hutton was calling or see the documents he was reading. In the overflow tent for reporters who couldn't find a seat in court, journalists giggled when Anderson appeared on the screen and spoke of his frustration. It took me a few moments to work out why they were laughing. He wasn't cracking jokes or making a fool of himself. The penny dropped when I realised they were displaying the pack's traditional contempt for weakness. If nothing else, Hutton has shown that power in Britain lies with unelected advisers, unelected media grandees and unelected judges. MPs, even if members of the Cabinet, don't get a look in. >From Blair's point of view, the court politics brought by unelected advisers has been a disaster. Instead of confronting his opponents by saying that Britain has been at war with Iraq since 1991, and rubbing home the point that the UN-authorised status quo which allowed sanctions and bombing raids but kept Saddam in power was intolerable, he and his courtiers chose to highlight dubious intelligence. I've argued in these columns before that the Iraq war marked a moment of deep moral ambiguity for the liberal-Left in Britain and across the world. Otherwise decent people were saying in effect that George W. Bush was worse than Saddam Hussein, and refusing to give a hearing to former comrades in Iraq who said they were talking nonsense and seeking to deny Iraqis the only chance they had to remove the Baath Party dictatorship. We're now in the ludicrous position where even the Iraqi Communist Party, which hasn't previously been regarded as a tool of the CIA, is saying that the priority for its members is to confront 'those criminal elements [from Saddam's regime] who attempt to obstruct the reconstruction of our country and the restoration of its sovereignty and independence'. From the Kurds in the north to the Shia in the south, there isn't a reputable political group which thanks Blair's opponents for presuming to speak on behalf of Iraqis. Yet the reality of the terror the Baath Party imposed, a terror so thorough- going it can make communists temporary allies of Bush's Republicans until the remnants of the old regime have been suppressed, barely intrudes on the debate in Britain. The Government is paying the price for failing miserably to present the evidence of Saddam's barbarism. It was there in abundance and it didn't need sexing up. No URL * IRAQ WEAPONS REPORT SHELVED by David Leppard Sunday Times, 14th September BRITAIN and America have decided to delay indefinitely the publication of a full report on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction after inspectors found no evidence that any such weapons exist. Efforts by the Iraq Survey Group, an Anglo-American team of 1,400 scientists, military and intelligence experts, to scour Iraq for the past four months to uncover evidence of chemical or biological weapons have so far ended in failure. It had been expected that a progress report would be published tomorrow but MPs on Westminster's security and intelligence committee have been told that even this has been delayed and no new date set. British defence intelligence sources confirmed last week that the final report, which is to be submitted by David Kay, the survey group's leader, to George Tenet, head of the CIA, had been delayed and may not necessarily even be published. In July Kay suggested on US television that he had seen enough evidence to convince himself that Saddam Hussein had had a programme to produce weapons of mass destruction. He expected to find "strong" evidence of missile delivery systems and "probably" evidence of biological weapons. But last week British officials said they believed Kay had been "kite-flying" and that no hard evidence had been uncovered. The hunt for weapons is seen in London and Washington as a vital step in convincing an increasingly sceptical public that the war was justified. There have already been false alarms. One early suggestion, by Downing Street and the White House, was that an unmanned plane found by UN inspectors could have been used to spray chemical weapons. But a US air force report leaked yesterday said such drones were primarily used for reconnaissance. http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c =StoryFT&cid=1059479821827&p=1012571727172 * IRAQI SCIENTISTS SAY N-PROGRAMME ENDED LONG AGO by Charles Clover in Baghdad Financial Times, 15th September Throughout 12 years of sanctions and weapons inspections, Iraqi nuclear scientists who denied the existence of a nuclear weapons programme were accused of being bought and threatened into silence by the Iraqi regime. Now, at last, they are free to talk without fear of repercussions and they are still saying the same thing - that the programme was scrapped long ago. "It was surprising to hear these things from the Americans, that we could build a nuclear bomb in six months, while meanwhile we were sitting here scrounging for a screwdriver," says a scientist who formerly headed a department in "Bomb Design Group Four", and who asked not to be named. Now that he is free to talk without fear of the regime, he admits that he and his colleagues were instructed to lie to United Nations inspectors about Iraq's nuclear weapons programme for about four years, starting when the inspectors arrived in 1991, until the defection of Hussein Kamel, head of weapons programmes and Saddam Hussein's son-in-law, in 1995. For the past seven years, he says,they have been telling the truth: that Iraq's nuclear weapons programme was shut down following the 1991 Gulf war and never restarted. "Before [Hussein Kamel's defection], we had had to sign a declaration that we cannot tell inspectors anything about the true aims of the programmes. Otherwise we were liable for dangerous repercussions," he says. "Afterwards, we had to sign another declaration: if we don't tell the truth and hand over all the documentation, then we will be punished." He said the equipment that was not destroyed in the 1991 war was tracked down and eliminated by inspectors from the UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency during the first few years of UN sanctions on Iraq. If what the scientist says is true, it will further undermine pre-war claims by the US government that Iraq's nuclear programme was an imminent threat. While the IAEA inspections found little to contradict Iraq's claim the programme was defunct, the US continued to sound the alarm before the war over Iraq's nuclear capability. "We have no indication that Saddam Hussein has ever abandoned his nuclear weapons programme," said Colin Powell, US secretary of state, to the UN Security Council on February 5. "On the contrary, we have more than a decade of proof that he remains determined to acquire nuclear weapons." However, not all scientists appear to have followed the instructions to hand over prohibited equipment, either because of personal decisions or because they were singled out as exceptions. Mahdi Obeidi, a nuclear scientist, told inspectors in May he had buried parts for a gas centrifuge under his rose garden at the request of Qusay Hussein, son of the dictator. IAEA investigators said the burial was evidence that the programme had not been restarted but US officials said this might have indicated a plan to begin the nuclear programme again after sanctions were lifted. "I honestly don't know what [Mr Obeidi] was thinking," says the scientist, who believes his former colleague to be outside Iraq now. One thing that still puzzles experts is why Mr Hussein should have gone to such lengths to prevent scientists from travelling outside Iraq and not to co-operate more with the inspections if Iraq had nothing to hide. The scientist says one reason is the number of Iraqi defectors who, he says, made exaggerated claims to US authorities. On July 31 2002, Khidir Hamza, a former nuclear scientist who defected to the US in 1994, told the US Senate foreign relations committee: "With a workable design and most of the needed components for a nuclear weapon already tested and in working order, Iraq is in the final stages of putting together its enrichment programme to enrich enough uranium for the final component needed in the nuclear core." The scientist dismisses Mr Hamza's information as untrue. "To tell the truth, we all thought the reason these defectors made these claims was because the Americans made them do it," he says. Mr Hamza, who has apparently returned to Baghdad, could not be reached for comment. Others have speculated that many Iraqi defectors had trumped up their own importance and claims to become more attractive candidates for asylum in the US. According to news reports, the Central Intelligence Agency has begun an investigation into whether it was duped by bogus defectors. http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c =StoryFT&cid=1059479848512&p=1012571727172 * MI6 CHIEF DEFENDS HIS SPIES by Bob Sherwood Financial Times, 15th September The head of the Secret Intelligence Service made an unprecedented, and unannounced, appearance by audio link at the Hutton inquiry on Monday to defend his spies' intelligence gathering and denounce David Kelly for discussing such sensitive material. Sir Richard Dearlove - known as "C" - insisted the claim that Iraq could launch chemical and biological weapons within 45 minutes was accurate but was "misinterpreted" by the public and media. Sir Richard also said Mr Kelly's remarks about the disputed Iraq arms dossier to the BBC reporter Susan Watts were "off the mark". He added: "I am shocked to see someone discussing one of the CX [intelligence] reports - which is what he was discussing - with a journalist without authorisation . . . It is a serious breach of discipline." The spymaster, whose service is more popularly known as MI6, has never made such a public announcement. His face was not shown on the inquiry's computer screens even to the lawyers involved, and he said that it was only the exceptional circumstances of the inquiry that had compelled him to comment publicly on the status of an intelligence source. Sir Richard was pressed by James Dingemans, the inquiry's counsel, over the "45-minute claim" which is at the centre of the BBC allegations that the government exaggerated its case against Iraq in the run-up to war. He immediately replied: "Can I just say you used the word 'claim'? I would prefer to refer to it as a piece of well-sourced intelligence." He broke with SIS practice to confirm that the source for the 45-minute claim was an "established and reliable source quoting a senior Iraqi military officer who was certainly in a position to know this information". Questioned whether the 45-minute claim had been given "undue prominence", Sir Richard appeared to concede the criticism levelled at the dossier last week by the Commons' intelligence and security committee that the claim lacked context. He said: "I think, given the misinterpretation that was placed on the '45-minute' intelligence, with the benefit of hindsight you can say that is a valid criticism but I am confident the intelligence was accurate and that the use made of it was entirely consistent with the original report." Pressed by Lord Hutton on what he meant, he added: "The original report referred to chemical and biological munitions and that was taken to refer to battlefield weapons. I think what subsequently happened in the reporting was that it was taken that the 45 minutes applied, let's say, to weapons of a longer range, not just battlefield material." But he dismissed criticism that the information was only from a single source, saying: "Much high-quality intelligence which is factual or proved to be factual is single source material." http://english.aljazeera.net/Articles/News/ArabWorld/Blix+Iraq+had+no+WMDs.h tm * BLIX: IRAQ BLUFFED ABOUT WMD Aljazeera, from AFP, 17th September Former UN chief weapons inspector Hans Blix believes that Iraq got rid of its weapons of mass destruction 10 years ago. Blix, who repeatedly disputed US claims that Saddam Hussein had chemical and biological weapons, told the Australian national radio that the deposed Iraqi ruler possibly pretended to have an arsenal only as a deterrent. "I am certainly more and more to the conclusion that Iraq has, as they maintained, destroyed all almost of what they had in the summer of 1999," Blix said. Asked if it was likely that Iraq has not had weapons of mass destruction for at least 10 years, Blix said it could be right. "You see, if they didn't have anything after 1991, there must be some explanation why they behaved as they did. They certainly gave the impression that they were denying access and so forth," he said. "I mean, you can put up a sign on your door, Beware of the Dog, without having a dog," Blix said Blix's latest comments are sure to fuel further the controversy over Iraqi WMD. Though the US and its allies invaded Iraq on the pretext that it had chemical and biological weapons, nothing has been found even months after the war ended. THE PAST http://www.iraqgroup.net/ * IRAQ'S SECRET ENVIRONMENTAL HORROR by ARNE JERNELOV Singapore Straits Times, 13th September HORROR stories of all types have emerged in Iraq since the fall of Saddam Hussein. But it wasn't only people who were horrifically abused; Iraq's environment was tormented as well. In the early 1970s, a major methyl mercury poisoning catastrophe occurred in which an estimated 10,000 people died and 100,000 were severely and permanently brain-damaged. Saddam's regime was largely successful in suppressing information on the event. The problem began in the late 1960s, when Iraq experienced a series of abysmal harvests. It began importing 'wonder wheat' from Mexico. The risk however was that the seed might grow mouldy during the long, humid ocean transport to Iraq if it was not dressed with some fungicide. Methyl mercury became the most cost-effective fungicide. It had recently been banned in Scandinavia and several American states due to environmental and toxicological risks, so the world market was flooded and prices dropped. The wheat seeds were thus dressed with methyl mercury and sent to Basra in Iraq's south. Because the shipment arrived late, trucks and trains that had been at hand were reassigned. So, it took another couple of months before the grain reached the farmers. By then, the sowing season was long over. Farmers were left with a pink grain that they were told not to eat, only to plant. But recent harvests had been lousy and farmers had little or nothing to feed their animals and themselves. Some began feeding the grain to chickens or sheep to see if there were any side effects. Nothing happened for weeks. So, some gave the grain to old grandfathers and grandmothers, who also didn't drop dead instantly. At that point, it seems, most farmers began giving the grain to their livestock and eating it themselves. Children supposedly liked the pink bread. But within half a year or so, bad things started to happen. Hospitals were flooded with patients showing symptoms of damage to the central nervous system. At first, doctors had no idea what the cause was. Some suspected an epidemic of 'brain fever' of some sort. Others more accurately pointed to methyl mercury. A small group of international experts on mercury were called in. I went as a World Health Organisation staff member. We confirmed that it was methyl mercury poisoning through contaminated food. But what food had been contaminated? Bread could be and sometimes was. Grain was fed to chicken, sheep and cows, so meat, milk, cheese, and butter became contaminated. To avoid problems, I ate only dates and American corned beef canned in 1941 and 1942 for the United States Army. When the imported grain was identified as the cause of the poisoning, Iraq's government acted decisively. Farmers were ordered to hand over all remaining supplies within a fortnight. To stress the urgency, a death penalty for possessing pink grain after that date was declared. But most farmers had no access to radio, television or daily newspapers. By the time most learned about the order and the penalty, the two weeks had passed and the army had started to execute those found to be still in possession of the grain. So, the farmers dumped grain wherever they could - along roadsides, in irrigation canals and in rivers. Fish soon became contaminated, as did migratory birds. One father of a family with several poisoned members, and without any traditional food left, stood in his doorway praising Allah for having made these birds easy to catch when they had nothing else to eat. At hospitals throughout the country, doctors concluded that there was nothing they could do. There is no real treatment for methyl mercury poisoning. In rural Iraq, the tradition is that a person preferably should die at home with his family around. Thus, when they saw and heard that doctors couldn't help, people brought their sick family members home. The official figures that put the number of deaths from methyl mercury poisoning at 6,500 people only cover those who died in hospital. The real number is certainly far higher. The crisis provided doctors with some greater understanding of how to detect methyl mercury poisoning. 'Quiet baby syndrome', for example, when mothers praise their babies for never crying, is now considered a warning sign for methyl mercury-induced brain damage in children. Treatment, too, has changed in the wake of the mass poisoning. The agents traditionally used to speed up excretion of inorganic metals from poisoned patients turned out to aggravate symptoms of methyl mercury poisoning. Through tricks and threats, Iraq's fallen dictatorship largely succeeded in keeping this tragedy under cover. Now, the story can be told. But whether anything can and will be done to belatedly help the victims is very much an open question. Arne Jernelov, a professor of environmental biochemistry in Vienna, is a UN expert on environmental catastrophes http://www.jordantimes.com/Mon/news/news3.htm * US ARMY'S DETECTIVES SCOUR IRAQI EARTH FOR MASS GRAVES Jordan Times, 15th September AL RADWANIA, Iraq (AFP) ‹ "This looks like a tibia," said Special Agent Scott Russ, scraping brown earth from a piece of bone he found Sunday at a site just south of Baghdad. For Russ and his partners, the hunt for mass graves in Iraq is a piecemeal affair. The men from the US army's detective unit were given information that the bodies of people executed by the former regime were buried at Al Radwania jail, which once sat within the compound of a police station. Russ and his colleagues belong to the military's Criminal Investigation Command, generally known as the CID. There are several hundred of them in Iraq, inspecting mass graves, probing bomb attacks on soldiers and investigating serious crime involving the army. "We didn't expect this," said CID spokesman Marc Raimondi, surveying the heaps of rubble and the collapsed buldings that are all that remain of the compound. "Looks like the US air force paid a lot of attention to this site." An estimated 300,000 to half a million people were put to death by Saddam Hussein's regime, beginning in 1979, according to officials from the US-led Coalition Provisional Authority. Some people linked to the mass executions were arrested in post war operations. But the coalition is only now beginning in-depth investigations and officials say they do not want to make further arrests before judicial processes are in place. But the evidence-gathering continues apace until those processes are set up. The information the CID was acting on here at Al Radwania said the bodies were buried near the front of the prison. But working out what was the front was impossible in this devastation. The eight-man team, protected by a dozen soldiers securing the perimeter of the site, fanned out to check the grid coordinates they were given for possible grave sites. Nothing turned up at any of them. But a local farmer came and told the soldiers he knew where some bodies were buried. Special Agent Jerry Luedecking loaded the man onto a Humvee and drove him to the spot on a nearby stretch of wasteland. Out came the spades and within minutes the special agents had uncovered some bones, including the tibia leg bone, and bits of clothing which he placed on a sheet of black plastic to be taken away and analysed in laboratories. "It's just old-fashioned detective work," said Luedecking, an army reservist who works as a police officer in a crime laboratory back home in Kalamazoo, Michigan. A bullet was found, and as the soldiers dug deeper, more fleshless bones turned up along with parts of a skull. Three femur leg bones were dug up, revealing that at least two people were buried here. By the United Nations' definition, three bodies constitute a mass grave. "You can see ... that the wound was inflicted from the inside," said Russ, holding up a piece of skull. "Most probably a bullet wound." As the soldiers shovelled and scraped, another man drove up and said, through one of the army's translators, that he could take them to a site where hundreds were buried. "I used to watch them take people out of the prison and truck them over the road to this site," said the man, who gave his name as Mukaram Subhai Shokat. "It was after the 1991 uprising. They were bringing them in from morning till night." But the ground at the place ‹ a bombed out air defence radar site ‹ was scattered with what looked like car batteries but, said the soldiers, could be mines. "We're going to call for explosives people and engineering support," said Russ, adding that the digging there would have to wait for another day. * U.S. INDICTS SON OF IRAQI EX-DIPLOMAT IN NEW YORK RFE/RL IRAQ REPORT, Vol. 6, No. 38, 15 September 2003 A second son of a former Iraqi diplomat in New York has been indicted on charges of aiding Iraqi intelligence officials in locating Iraqi dissidents in the U.S. that were hostile to the Hussein regime, nytimes.com reported on 6 September. According to federal prosecutors, Wisam Numan al-Anbuge, 24, was indicted. His older brother, Raed, was charged in April with failing to register with the U.S. Justice Department as a foreign agent after it was discovered that he had been working for Iraqi intelligence since January 2001. The nytimes.com reported that the elder brother had met with Iraqi intelligence officers posted to the Iraqi mission in New York City and had identified dissidents for them. According to the Wisam al-Anbuge indictment, the younger brother was charged after it was discovered that he provided Iraqi intelligence officials with information on the location of two dissidents in 2001. He also is alleged to have lied to FBI officials about his activities. Both men pled "not guilty" to the charges. The father of the men, Rukan al-Anbuge, served as a diplomat in New York in the 1990s. (Kathleen Ridolfo) http://www.dailystar.com.lb/16_09_03/art20.asp * POWELL PAYS EMOTIONAL VISIT TO HALABJA Lebanon Daily Star, 16th September US Secretary of State Colin Powell on Monday honored thousands of Kurds gassed by ousted President Saddam Hussein's forces 15 years ago, as violence surged elsewhere in Iraq with the killing of another US soldier and an Iraqi police chief. In Halabja, 130 kilometers east of Kirkuk, Powell and US civil administrator Paul Bremer held talks with Jalal Talabani, leader of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan, and Massoud Barzani, chief of the Kurdistan Democratic Party, which share power in the region. Powell was warmly welcomed in the town, where about 5,000 people perished in 1988 when the Iraqi Army unleashed poison gas in retaliation for a Kurdish revolt. Children thronged the streets while the crowd held aloft portraits of US President George W. Bush and banners emblazoned with the words: "Our liberators are welcome." At a poignant ceremony, with hundreds of relatives of those who died present, Powell stood flanked by Talabani, Barzani, Bremer and PUK member Barham Saleh. Addressing the crowd, Powell said: "This town is marked in history forever. The world should have acted sooner. What happened here in 1988 is never to happen again. "'Chemical Ali' is in jail," he added, referring to Ali Hassan al-Majid, the man believed to have ordered the attack and who was captured last month. "He will stay in jail until an Iraqi court decides his fate," . Talabani replied: "We are very proud to be your allies in your struggle against tyranny. Now we have good chance to achieve a democratic Iraq." Leaving Iraq Monday evening, Powell arrived in Kuwait City, where he was expected to meet the Kuwaiti foreign minister, Sheikh Mohammed Sabah al-Salem al-Sabah. He told journalists there that the US will keep trying to overcome the objections of Kurdish politicians to accepting Turkish troops as part of a multinational force in Iraq. "There are, let me put this delicately, serious sensitivities associated with Turkish troops. Nevertheless we are going to continue to discuss it," he said. [.....] http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/world/2103295 * FORMER IRAQI DEFENSE MINISTER URGED TO SURRENDER Houston Chronicle, (from AP), 16th September MOSUL, Iraq -- The commanding general of the 101st Airborne Division has promised to treat Saddam Hussein's fugitive defense minister with "utmost dignity and respect" if he surrenders. The offer, made in a letter dated Aug. 28 by Maj. Gen. David Petraeus, was in response to a request by Sultan Hashim Ahmed's family and tribal chiefs that Ahmed's name be removed from America's list of 55 most-wanted Iraqis in return for his surrender. "I offer you a simple, yet honorable alternative to a life on the run from coalition forces in order to avoid capture, imprisonment and loss of honor and dignity befitting a general officer," Petraeus said in the letter, which was shown to The Associated Press by an Iraqi mediator. Giving Ahmed special treatment could be an effort to defuse the continuing guerrilla-style attacks taking a heavy toll on American soldiers. Many attackers are thought to be former Iraqi soldiers who melted into the civilian population after Saddam was ousted. Seeing their former military leader treated well by the Americans, such thinking runs, could encourage them to lay down their arms. Also, there were reports before and during the American-led invasion that Ahmed was actually cooperating with the Americans. That was never confirmed. "I officially request your surrender to me. In return, I will accept this from you in person," the letter says. "You have my word that you will be treated with the utmost dignity and respect, and that you will not be physically or mentally mistreated while under my custody. As a sign of good faith, I will personally ensure that my staff will attend to any medical conditions you have." Master Sgt. Kelly Tyler, spokeswoman for the 101st, said she was not aware of the letter, but said the division has written to other wanted Iraqis seeking their surrender. Before the U.S. invasion, there were rumors that Ahmed had fallen out of favor with Saddam and was under house arrest. Spokesmen for Saddam's government denied that. Dawood Bagistani, a human rights activist in Mosul, is mediating between the Americans and Ahmed's family. Bagistani, a Kurd, also wrote to President Bush this month, asking him to remove Ahmed from the list. "This man has not done any crime," the letter said. He added that his investigation found no complaints against Ahmed by the Iraqi people. "If we were not certain of his innocence, we wouldn't have intervened," Bagistani said in an interview. He said Ahmed was liked by all groups -- Kurds, Arabs, Christians and Sunni and Shiite Muslims. Bagistani said he would go on local TV on Tuesday night to tell Ahmed the Americans had agreed to take his name off the most-wanted list if he surrendered. The offer, Bagistani said, would call for Ahmed to be kept in U.S. custody only long enough for him to be thoroughly questioned. He could then return to normal life without prosecution by the Americans. There was no confirmation from U.S. officials. Bagistani said Petraeus' letter to Ahmed was in "so many words, an acceptance of his family's condition for his surrender." He said his organization and the U.S. Army were still awaiting a response from Ahmed and his family to Petraeus' offer. "I think it is going to be OK. His family, his brothers want this to end peacefully. But they are afraid that the Americans may renege on their promise. They think the U.S. is like the previous regime or those of other Middle Eastern countries." The Americans have an idea where Ahmed is hiding, Bagistani said, adding that if Ahmed took too long to respond, they might try to take him by force, possibly resulting in his death or injury. One of the senior leaders of the al-Tai tribe to which Ahmed belongs said if Ahmed's name was removed from the list, the tribe would invite the Americans to a big party and slaughter 150 sheep in their honor. In the letter, Petraeus acknowledged Ahmed's reputation. "I understand that you are the most respected senior military leader currently residing in Mosul. Your reputation as a man of honor and integrity is known throughout the country," he said. He even struck a note of camaraderie with his fellow army officer. "Although we find ourselves on different sides of this war, we do share common traits. As military men, we follow the orders of our superiors. We may not necessarily agree with the politics and bureaucracy, but we understand unity of command and supporting our leaders in a common and just cause," Petraeus said. "However, the collapse of your regime necessitates your thoughtful reconsideration of support. I am concerned that your perceived resistance to the Coalition's efforts to bring back this country's honor is detrimental and will result in further and needless loss of lives," he added. He warned, however, that the U.S. Army was "resolute" and would "do all that is necessary to ensure that we achieve our objectives." COMPENSATION SCAM(S) http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2003/sep/11/091100258.html * JUDGE DENIES IRAQ FUNDS FOR 9/11 VICTIMS by LARRY NEUMEISTER Las Vegas Sun, 11th September NEW YORK (AP) - A judge ruled Thursday that families of Sept. 11 victims cannot tap into Iraqi funds frozen by the United States at the start of the first Gulf War because the money will be spent to reconstruct war-torn Iraq. U.S. District Judge Harold Baer issued the decision after family members sought to freeze some of the $1.7 billion in funds - which the Bush administration has already started to use to help pay for Iraq's revival - to satisfy an earlier court ruling saying Iraq owed the families $63.5 million. Baer said the law gave him little choice but to deny the request even though it may mean that the families are denied the only available source to satisfy the judgment. "The government contends that these funds ... are needed to rebuild Iraq," Baer wrote. "That need is clear, nonetheless one wonders whether American families who lost loved ones as a result of terrorism here and abroad ought not be compensated first." Earlier this year, Baer had concluded that Iraq aided Osama bin Laden's terror network prior to Sept. 11, 2001, when roughly 3,000 people died in attacks on the World Trade Center, the Pentagon and a hijacked plane that crashed in Pennsylvania. Baer said lawyers for two victims "have shown, albeit barely ... that Iraq provided material support to bin Laden and al-Qaida." James Beasley, a Philadelphia lawyer for the families, did not immediately return a telephone message for comment. The ruling stemmed from lawsuits brought on behalf of the estates of George Eric Smith, 38, a senior business analyst for SunGard Asset Management, and Timothy Soulas, 35, a senior managing director and partner at Cantor Fitzgerald Securities. Both men worked at the World Trade Center. A 1996 law permits lawsuits against countries identified by the State Department as sponsors of international terrorism. http://www.jordantimes.com/Sun/news/news8.htm * IRAQ WANTS RELIEF FROM KUWAIT COMPENSATION Jordan Times, 14th September BAGHDAD (AFP) ‹ Iraq wants donors at a conference in Madrid next month to resolve the issue of compensation to Kuwait, cut its foreign debt load and provide much-needed funds for reconstruction. The October 23-24 conference is expected to create a multi-donor trust fund for Iraq, through which reconstruction funds would be channelled, according to the European Commission. The meeting will be attended by the United States, the European Union, Japan, the United Arab Emirates, the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund as well as the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) and Iraq's interim Governing Council. "We need a solution to the issue of compensation decreed by Security Council resolution 1483," Mahdi Al Hafez, Iraq's planning minister told AFP Friday. Under the resolution, Iraq was ordered to pay Kuwait five per cent of its oil revenue as compensation for its August 1990 invasion and its seven-month occupation of the emirate. Baghdad has already paid $19 billion of the $50 billion already approved under the scheme set up in 1991 and further payments would "put a heavy and an unjustified financial burden on the Iraqi economy because the Iraqi people is not responsible for the crimes of the previous regime," said Hafez. He said claims by Kuwaiti and non-Kuwaiti individuals and companies affected by the first Gulf war have reached about $300 billion. Another burden for Iraq is its foreign debt, estimated by international organisations to total $130 billion of which $80 billion is original debt and $50 billion is debt service built up over the past 20 years. Hafez wants the international community to reduce this debt and cancel part of it through new agreements. Last week World Bank President James Wolfensohn said an accord over Iraq's external debt was needed as soon as possible to decide which part of it would be cancelled and what would be restructured. http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nat-gen/2003/sep/15/091509454.html * LAWSUIT ALLEGES AL-QAIDA TIES WITH IRAQ by JOHN SOLOMON Las Vegas Sun, 15th September WASHINGTON (AP) - The Bush administration's claims of ties between Saddam Hussein's regime and al-Qaida terrorists are being tested in federal court, where the family of the FBI's late counterterrorism chief has sued Iraq over the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings. The wife and children of John O'Neill, who died in the attack on the World Trade Center, allege that Iraq began communicating with al-Qaida as early as 1992, provided training to Osama bin Laden's warriors and sent intelligence agents to work with the terror network in Afghanistan. The suit accuses Iraq of complicity in the Sept. 11 attacks by providing support to terrorists, and seeks $1 billion in damages. The Associated Press reported over the weekend, based on interviews with intelligence officials, that the Bush administration has evidence of contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaida but no proof of direct Iraqi sponsorship of al-Qaida attacks. The evidence, the sources said, includes statements by Iraqi defectors and al-Qaida prisoners that Iraqi intelligence provided al-Qaida with training in document forgery and chemical and biological weapons in a series of contacts that spiked in 1996, and again after 1998. In its lawsuit, which was filed quietly last month in U.S. District Court, the O'Neill family says its information was gleaned from documents uncovered in Afghanistan and Iraq as recently as a few months ago, as well as information from interrogations of al-Qaida and Iraqi prisoners. For instance, the lawsuit alleges that bin Laden's top deputy, Ayman al-Zawahri, visited Baghdad in 1992 and 1998, and that contact between Iraq and al-Qaida increased markedly in 1998, the year the terror network bombed two U.S. embassies in Africa. "Documents recently found in the bombed headquarters of the Mukhabarat, Iraq's intelligence service, reveal that an al-Qaida envoy was invited clandestinely to Baghdad in March 1998," the lawsuit states. "The documents reveal that the purpose of the meeting was to establish a relationship between Baghdad and al-Qaida based on their mutual hatred of American and Saudi Arabia." Bush administration officials declined comment on the O'Neill suit. A recently retired intelligence officer who was friends with O'Neill says he fears the family's suit contains rumors and hearsay that have not been corroborated by intelligence. "John O'Neill was a true American patriot. But given what we know about the alleged Iraq-al Qaida connection, my concern is that his family is now being taken advantage of," former National Security Council official Roger Cressey said. But one of the family's attorney said all the allegations will be proven in court. "We can substantiate through witnesses and documents all the allegations," said attorney Joshua Ambush, who has helped other families in successful lawsuits involving terrorism. The lawsuit says, without citing a source, that two of bin Laden's senior military commanders, Muhammed abu-Islam and Abdullah Qassim, visited Baghdad in April and May 1998 to meet with Qusay Hussein, one of Saddam's sons. The suit also claims that bin Laden then sent al-Zawahri, his top deputy, to meet with Iraqi officials, including then-Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan. During his stay, al-Zawahri went to an Iraqi military base and a suspected nuclear and chemical weapons facility near al-Fallujah, Iraq, the suit alleges. The suit does not identify its source of information for al-Zawahri's 1998 visit to Baghdad, but cites information from a specific captive as evidence that the same bin Laden deputy met in 1992 with Iraqi intelligence in Baghdad. "An Iraqi serving with the Taliban who fled Afghanistan in fall of 2001 was captured in Kurdistan and has corroborated this meeting and confirmed that Iraqi contacts with al Qaida began in 1992," the suit states. It identifies the captive as Abu Iman al-Maliki. O'Neill was one the FBI's top terrorism experts, leading investigations into such attacks as the 2000 USS Cole bombing. He left the FBI shortly before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks over an investigation into his loss of a briefcase with sensitive FBI documents. He accepted a job as chief of security at the World Trade Center in New York City and was in the towers when they collapsed. The family's lawsuit alleges documents recovered in Iraq show that three employees of the al-Jazeera Arab TV network "received substantial funding from the Iraqi regime in exchange for acting as a liaison between Iraq and al-Qaeda." "One document reveals that al-Jazeera passed letters from Osama bin Laden to Saddam Hussein," the suit states. Al-Jazeera has denied aiding bin Laden or his network, although one of its correspondents was recently arrested in Spain on terrorism charges. _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk