Family sues over Iraqi killings (says "war was illegal.")

[joeunderdog]

A Manchester-based Iraqi family is launching legal action against the Ministry of Defence for the deaths of 10 relatives in the recent war.
It is understood the Hamoodis will be making legal history, as it is the first time the UK Government has faced a civil claim for unlawful killing.

<snip>

Three generations of the family died on 5 April, when coalition forces accidentally destroyed their home in Basra, southern Iraq.

The troops had been hunting Saddam Hussein's cousin, Ali Hasan Majid, known as Chemical Ali, who was living in a house nearby.

<snip>

He said: "If the intelligence which resulted in the deaths of these 10 people was 'bad'... and effectively the authorities went ahead and bombed this family... that would suggest to me overall that the war was illegal because it was based on some misconstrued assumptions."

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3220123.stm

[NNN0LHI]

1. Blair was warned it was illegal by his own wifes law firm n/t

[BlueEyedSon]

2. Link?

thx.

[DarkPhenyx]

3. Yes definately.

A link about the Law Firm statement would be most useful.

[shirlden]

5. Try this link

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/cherie/story/0,12713,973181,00.html


:kick:

[joeunderdog]

7. ...a related link with some disturbing details of what's going on.

http://www.veteransforcommonsense.org/newsArticle.asp?id=1226

...All American soldiers are supposed to believe - indeed have to believe, along with their President and his Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld - that Osama bin Laden's "al-Qa'ida" guerrillas, pouring over Iraq's borders from Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia (note how those close allies and neighbours of Iraq, Kuwait and Turkey are always left out of the equation), are assaulting United States forces as part of the "war on terror". Special forces soldiers are now being told by their officers that the "war on terror" has been transferred from America to Iraq, as if in some miraculous way, 11 September 2001 is now Iraq 2003.

snip

The rot comes from the top. Even during the Anglo-American invasion of Iraq, US forces declined to take responsibility for the innocents they killed. "We do not do body counts," General Tommy Franks announced. So there was no apology for the 16 civilians killed at Mansur when the "Allies" - note how we Brits get caught up in this misleading title - bombed a residential suburb in the vain hope of killing Saddam. When US special forces raided a house in the very same area four months later - hunting for the very same Iraqi leader - they killed six civilians, including a 14-year-old boy and a middle-aged woman, and only announced, four days later, that they would hold an "inquiry". Not an investigation, you understand, nothing that would suggest there was anything wrong in gunning down six Iraqi civilians; and in due course the "inquiry" was forgotten - as it was no doubt meant to be - and nothing has been heard of it again.

snip

But on the ground in Iraq, Americans have a licence to kill. Not a single soldier has been disciplined for shooting civilians - even when the fatality involves an Iraqi working for the occupation authorities. No action has been taken, for instance, over the soldier who fired a single shot through the window of an Italian diplomat's car, killing his translator, in northern Iraq. Nor against the soldiers of the 82nd Airborne who gunned down 14 Sunni Muslim protesters in Fallujah in April. (Captain Cirino was not involved.) Nor against the troops who shot dead 11 more protesters in Mosul.

I guess when you're the one holding the gun, you make the rules. ...And Chimp keeps proclaiming "It's good to be the King!"

[NNN0LHI]

6. link

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/cherie/story/0,12713,973181,00.html

Partner in Cherie law firm seeks judicial review of 'illegal' invasion

Antony Barnett, public affairs editor
Sunday June 8, 2003
The Observer

One of the co-founders of Cherie Blair's law firm has launched a blistering attack on the legality of the Iraq war.

Rabinder Singh QC, a leading international and human rights barrister at Matrix chambers, is calling for a judicial review on the ground that no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

In a legal opinion seen by The Observer, Singh argues that the original view of the Attorney-General, Lord Goldsmith, that the war was legal is no longer valid because it was based on the need to disarm Saddam.

Singh, one of the pre-eminent human rights lawyers in the country and a close colleague of Cherie Blair, was asked to prepare a legal opinion for the CND and other peace groups opposed to the war.

more

[dArKeR]

4. A very famous Washington Post reporter told me that people cannot

sue Bush/Fed. Gov. in the United States. He responded to my email; about 2 months ago.

[TacticalPeek]

8. Well, true, I think he'd have to agree to be sued as President/fed gov.

But wouldn't you say the P. Jones thingy shows that aWol could be sued personally (wrongful death perhaps, etc.)? I guess it would need to be for an action of his before 20 JAN 01. I'll bet there was something dirty on this during the transition, the putting together of the 'get Saddam' team perhaps.

Is that the Rutherford Institute on the phone?

:silly: