The following is an archived copy of a message sent to the CASI Analysis List run by Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of Cambridge Solidarity with Iraq (CASI).
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [CASI Homepage]
[ This message has been sent to you via the CASI-analysis mailing list ] This is an automated compilation of submissions to newsclippings@casi.org.uk Articles for inclusion in this daily news mailing should be sent to newsclippings@casi.org.uk. Please include a full reference to the source of the article. Today's Topics: 1. Iraq "could get state oil firm" (ppg) 2. UK Pays Families of Iraqis Killed by Brits (cafe-uni) 3. Full Text - Statement Issued By The Hutton Inquiry (cafe-uni) 4. Carnegie Group Says Bush Made Wrong Claims on WMD (cafe-uni) --__--__-- Message: 1 From: "ppg" <ppg@DELETETHISnyc.rr.com> To: <casi-news@lists.casi.org.uk> Subject: Iraq "could get state oil firm" Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 15:57:57 -0500 [ Presenting plain-text part of multi-format email ] Story from BBC NEWS: http://tinyurl.com/3a8rw Thursday, 8 January, 2004, 17:35 GMT Iraq 'could get state oil firm' US advisers and Iraqi officials are considering the setting up of a state-r= un oil company in Iraq, according to the Wall Street Journal. The move would significantly limit the role of foreign oil companies in Ira= q, which has the second-largest proven oil reserves in the world. It also would help allay criticism that the US-led invasion was primarily a= imed at securing control of oil fields. "It's just pragmatism", a coalition authority adviser told the paper. Protected from politics Under the proposals, the day-to-day running of the company would be carried= out by a professional management team. While an oil minister would be ultimately responsible for what was happenin= g, the company would be somewhat insulated from political interference, the= Wall Street Journal (WSJ) said. A similar structure is in place in Saudi Arabia and Kuwait and according to= Robert McKee, an oil adviser for the Coalition Provisional Authority, "our= preference is definitely in that direction". Interim oil minister Ibrahim Bahr al-Uloum is meeting separately with indus= try officials and plans to unveil a study on restructuring at an oil confer= ence in Baghdad next month. The advisers argue that a politically independent company would be able to = boost production and improve operations without fuelling nationalistic ange= r that the country's assets were being stripped. No decision yet And that, in the long run, may help bring an end to the social unrest that = has seen oil pipelines attacked and led to jostling between Kurds in the no= rth and Shia in the south, the WSJ said. A spokeswoman for the Coalition Provisional Authority, the US-led administr= ation that has run Iraq since Saddam Hussein was overthrown, was keen to po= int out that Mr McKee's role is purely one of adviser. The final decision on how Iraq's oil industry is run will ultimately be dec= ided by the Iraqi people themselves. "Nothing has been ruled out, nothing has been ruled in," she said. --__--__-- Message: 2 From: "cafe-uni" <cafe-uni@DELETETHISfreeuk.com> To: "casi news" <newsclippings@casi.org.uk> Subject: UK Pays Families of Iraqis Killed by Brits Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:18:51 -0000 Use WWW.CAFE-UNI.CO.UK for news on Iraq and other Middle East News > MoD pays out for Iraqi civilian deaths > Richard Norton-Taylor > Wednesday January 7, 2004 > The Guardian > http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1117599,00.html > > The government has paid compensation believed to amount to thousands of > pounds to three families of Iraqi civilians allegedly killed by British > troops, it was disclosed yesterday. > > A further 13 claims following the deaths of Iraqi civilians are being > investigated, the Ministry of Defence said. > > One of the payments has been made to the family of Baha Mousa, the son of a > police colonel, who died allegedly after being assaulted with seven other > young Iraqis by British soldiers in Basra last September. > > A British army death certificate is reported to state that Mr Mousa died of > "asphyxia". > > One of the survivors of the alleged incident is reported to have suffered > serious kidney failure. > > The MoD yesterday declined to comment on a report that it had offered the > Mousa family =A34,500 in compensation. > > However, it insisted that money given to Iraqi families was in the form of > "ex gratia payments". That did not mean the MoD accepted liability for any > of the deaths, it said. "We do not accept admission of guilt. That is the > policy." > > But a spokesman said that "several British soldiers" were assisting the > special investigation branch of the military police who were undertaking > criminal inquiries. > > An investigation into Mr Mousa's death was continuing, he added. > > The compensation claims were revealed in a written parliamentary answer to > the Plaid Cymru MP, Adam Price. > > The MoD said 23 Iraqi families had made compensation claims following the > deaths of civilians. > > Seven of the claims have been rejected while another 13 are under > investigation. A further 73 claims have been made by Iraqi civilians > claiming to have been injured by British forces since May 1 last year. > > Mr Price will today call on the government to hold an independent inquiry > into the fatalities during a Commons debate on "postwar civilian deaths and > military operations in Iraq". > > He said yesterday: "In the majority of these cases we do not know the > circumstances or even the names of the victims as proper public scrutiny has > not been possible either in Iraq or in the UK." > > He added: "It is simply not acceptable for the military to be investigating > themselves and deciding on an ad hoc basis whether or not to award ex gratia > payments to the families of the deceased. > > "We need an independent and fully impartial investigation into all of these > allegations of civilian deaths involving coalition forces so that justice is > done and seen to be done by the long suffering people of Iraq." > > He said Carl Conetta, director of Washington-based thinktank Project on > Defence Alternatives, estimated there had been 200 civilian Iraqi deaths as > a result of action by occupying forces between May and November last year. > > Guardian Unlimited =A9 Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 > --__--__-- Message: 3 From: "cafe-uni" <cafe-uni@DELETETHISfreeuk.com> To: "casi news" <newsclippings@casi.org.uk> Subject: Full Text - Statement Issued By The Hutton Inquiry Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:20:05 -0000 Use WWW.CAFE-UNI.CO.UK for news on Iraq and other Middle East News > Full text of the statement issued by the Hutton Inquiry > PA > 07 January 2004 > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=3D47 8961 > > There have been a number of reports in the press today about written > submissions made to the Hutton Inquiry by the Government. Therefore Lord > Hutton has issued the following statement to clarify the position in > relation to those submissions: > > It has always been public knowledge that after the closing oral statements > by their counsel all the parties at the Inquiry were given the opportunity > to submit further written submissions. In his closing statement to the > Inquiry on 25th September 2003 Mr Dingemans QC, counsel to the Inquiry, > said: > > "The parties are being given the opportunity to put in any further written > submissions and given the opportunity to correct any factual errors they say > have been made in any written submissions." > > The parties were given this opportunity in the interests of fairness in case > any party considered that it had not fully developed all the points it > wished to make in the course of its oral submissions. > > The BBC, Mr Andrew Gilligan, the Kelly family, as well as the Government, > availed themselves of the opportunity to submit further written submissions, > and the further written submissions of each party were sent to all the other > parties. Therefore, contrary to the suggestions in some of the press reports > today, there was nothing surprising or unexpected or of special significance > in the making of these written submissions. > > The Inquiry received requests for the parties' written submissions to be > posted on its website and on 13th October 2003 the Inquiry's solicitor, Mr > Martin Smith, wrote to the solicitors for all the parties stating: > > "As you will be aware through your counsel, the Inquiry has received > requests for the parties' written submissions to be posted on its website. > Lord Hutton is currently minded to accede to this request in relation to the > parties' final (but not interim) submissions. > > "Please let me know whether you have any objections to this course of > action." > > The parties who had made oral submissions replied stating that they were > opposed to the publication of the written submissions pending the > publication of the report and, in slightly different terms, they all made > the point that publication would encourage a trial of various individuals > (against whom no criticism might be made in the report) by the media and > that this would be unfair. > > After considering this objection, and balancing the need to protect > individuals against the benefits of publishing the written submissions > before the delivery of his report, Lord Hutton concluded that he should not > publish the submissions pending his report, and that he would give further > consideration to the publication of the written submissions after the report > had been published. Therefore on 22nd October 2003 the Inquiry's solicitor > wrote to the respective solicitors for the parties as follows: > > "Thank you for your letter containing representations about whether Lord > Hutton should confirm his provisional view that it was appropriate for the > parties' final (but not interim) written submissions to be published on the > Inquiry's website. > > "Having reviewed your letter, and those received from the other parties on > this issue, Lord Hutton has decided that these documents should not be made > available to the public at this stage. Accordingly, the written submissions > will not be posted on the website prior to Lord Hutton's report being > published. > > "Lord Hutton will give further consideration to whether the parties' written > submissions should be made public, after his report is published." > > =A9 2003 Independent Digital (UK) Ltd > > --__--__-- Message: 4 From: "cafe-uni" <cafe-uni@DELETETHISfreeuk.com> To: "casi news" <newsclippings@casi.org.uk> Subject: Carnegie Group Says Bush Made Wrong Claims on WMD Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 22:20:59 -0000 Use WWW.CAFE-UNI.CO.UK for news on Iraq and other Middle East News > Carnegie group says Bush made wrong claims on WMD > Julian Borger in Washington > Thursday January 8, 2004 > The Guardian > http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1118424,00.html > > The Bush administration will today be accused of "systematically > misrepresenting" the threat posed by "Iraq's weapons of mass destruction" in > a comprehensive report on post-war findings. > > The report, by four experts on weapons proliferation at the respected > Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, is likely to reignite calls for > acommission to look into the government's pre-war intelligence claims. > > According to the report, the absence of any imminent threat from Saddam > Hussein's chemical or nuclear programmes was "knowable" before the war. > There was greater uncertainty over biological weapons but no evidence strong > enough to justify war. > > The authors say the intelligence reports of Iraq's capabilities grew more > shrill in October 2002 with the publication of a National Intelligence > Estimate (NIE), which included an unusual number of dissenting views by > intelligence officials. > > The intelligence community, the report says, began to be unduly influenced > by policymakers' views "sometime in 2002". Repeated visits to the CIA by the > US vice president, Dick Cheney, and demands by top officials to see > unsubstantiated reports, created an atmosphere in which intelligence > analysts were pressed to come to "more threatening" judgments of Iraq. > > The report concludes that "administration officials systematically > misrepresented the threat from Iraq's WMD and ballistic missile programmes". > > Last night aWhite House official responded by pointing to Mr Bush's comment > on December 15 when he was pressed on the absence of Iraqi WMD. He claimed > evidence had been found that contravened UN resolution 1441 calling for > Saddam to disarm, a possible reference to signs that Iraq had been trying to > extend the range of its missiles beyond UN limits. > > Stuart Cohen, the vice chairman of the National Intelligence Council, which > oversees intelligence assessments, also defended the 2002 NIE. "We did not, > in any area, hype our judgments. We made our calls based on the evidence we > had. We never used the word 'imminent' in the ... estimate." > > But Joseph Cirincione, lead author of the Carnegie report, said: "This is > the first thorough review of the intelligence threat assessments, > administration statements, findings of UN inspectors and nine months of US > searches in Iraq. It shows the threat assessment process is broken. The NIE > was wildly off the mark." > > Guardian Unlimited =A9 Guardian Newspapers Limited 2004 > > > > End of casi-news Digest _______________________________________ Sent via the CASI-analysis mailing list To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-analysis All postings are archived on CASI's website at http://www.casi.org.uk