I am currently reading through the dossier of "evidence" supplied today by the British government, supposedly evidence against Iraq, indicating they have chem/bio/nuclear weapons and such. So far I'm up to page 20 of 55, and this is not an intelligence report. This is a public relations exercise, which, up to page 20, has yet to offer any evidence. I've read intelligence reports form various nations about various topics, and this is not at all like them. The method and tone are basically what I would expect from Blaire's speech-writers.

So far, the closest it comes to offering evidence is:


THE CURRENT POSITION: 1998–2002
1. This chapter sets out what we know of Saddam Hussein’s chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missile programmes, drawing on all the available evidence.
While it takes account of the results from UN inspections and other publicly available information, it also draws heavily on the latest intelligence about Iraqi efforts to develop their programmes and capabilities since 1998. The main conclusions are that:
● Iraq has a useable chemical and biological weapons capability, in breach of UNSCR 687, which has included recent production of chemical and biological agents;
● Saddam continues to attach great importance to the possession of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles which he regards as being the basis for Iraq’s regional power. He is determined to retain these capabilities;
● Iraq can deliver chemical and biological agents using an extensive range of artillery shells, free-fall bombs, sprayers and ballistic missiles;
● Iraq continues to work on developing nuclear weapons, in breach of its obligations under the Non-Proliferation Treaty and in breach of UNSCR 687. Uranium has been sought from Africa that has no civil nuclear application in Iraq;
● Iraq possesses extended-range versions of the SCUD ballistic missile in breach of UNSCR 687 which are capable of reaching Cyprus, Eastern Turkey, Tehran and Israel. It is also developing longer-range ballistic missiles;
● Iraq’s current military planning specifically envisages the use of chemical and biological weapons;
● Iraq’s military forces are able to use chemical and biological weapons, with command, control and logistical arrangements in place. The Iraqi military are able to deploy these weapons within 45 minutes of a decision to do so;
● Iraq has learnt lessons from previous UN weapons inspections and is already
taking steps to conceal and disperse sensitive equipment and documentation in advance of the return of inspectors;
● Iraq’s chemical, biological, nuclear and ballistic missiles programmes are well-funded.

And that's not actual evidence, just claims.

Okay, it mentions the capacity to produce chemicals, and admits that those chemicals are used in a normal civilians manner:


Other dual-use facilities, which are capable of being used to support the production of chemical agent and precursors, have been rebuilt and re-equipped. New chemical facilities have been built, some with illegal foreign assistance, and are probably fully operational or ready for production. These include the Ibn Sina Company at Tarmiyah (see figure 1), which is a chemical research centre. It undertakes research, development and production of chemicals previously imported but not now available and which are needed for Iraq’s civil industry. The Director General of the research centre is Hikmat Na’im al-Jalu who prior to the Gulf War worked in Iraq’s nuclear weapons programme and after the war was responsible for preserving Iraq’s chemical expertise.

Some nice implications, but still no evidence...

Finished. Lots of "Intelligence claims that..." with no evidence, as though simply citing "intelligence" as a source makes it beyond doubt, and no actual evidence is required. Also a lot of "Saddam wants...", maybe to scare us all into ignoring the lack of evidence? Also I notice a lot of "Iraq imports these chemicals for use in its farming or petrol production [examples] but they could be used for building nukes!" Followed by a hell of a lot of history and bad press for Saddam, no doubt so we all say "Oooh, isn't he such a nasty man!" But still, no evidence.

Really, this is crap. I'm sure it comes directly from the imaginations and internet research of Blaire's speechwriters.

Adam:
"Really, this is crap. I'm sure it comes directly from the imaginations and internet research of Blaire's speechwriters."

I normally ignore your posts, Adam but let me just say this. Revealing intelligence in many cases puts the intelligence gathers at risk. Why? Because the specific nature of the information can lead to a limited list of those in the know. If there is a requirement for more infomation from that source, what the source is suppling will not be revealed until it is safe to do so. Plus, when an enemy knows what you know about them they can take steps to suppress or eliminate further info in that area.
I speak from experience.

Giskard

Yes, there are risks in citing intelligence sources, but what about satellite imagery? There were two photos published, but none showing the reconstruction of facilities. Military satellites must be taking thousands of pictures, but none have been published. Why?

Captain Canada:
"Military satellites must be taking thousands of pictures, but none have been published. Why?"

Same reason. When an enemy knows what you know about them they can take steps to suppress or eliminate further info in that area. It is also common practice to start filling in bogus info with the good so the intelligence becomes unreliable.

i dont give a DAM if giving evidance risks the gathering of it

if you say something is evidance then you PROVIDE evidance

no court would accept that junk

Originally posted by Giskard
Adam:
"Really, this is crap. I'm sure it comes directly from the imaginations and internet research of Blaire's speechwriters."

I normally ignore your posts, Adam but let me just say this. Revealing intelligence in many cases puts the intelligence gathers at risk. Why? Because the specific nature of the information can lead to a limited list of those in the know. If there is a requirement for more infomation from that source, what the source is suppling will not be revealed until it is safe to do so. Plus, when an enemy knows what you know about them they can take steps to suppress or eliminate further info in that area.
I speak from experience.
I must admit, this is the first post of yours I've bothered reading. Let me also say that having worked in the military with Australian, USA, and British intelligence, among others, there's not a damn thing about publishing photographs by satellites or UNSCOM teams which would endanger anyone except Saddam Hussein and his military. They already know who the UNSCOM people are, and they have absoltuely no method of affecting the satellites which would be involved in such things. Now, if the supposed evidence was collected by special forces soldiers, again, publishing the pics does not endanger them, since the identification of such soldiers is not required for the publication of such pictures. The ONLY way publishing such pictures is dangerous to anyone is if they were taken by someone who has access to such a place where access is restricted to a small number of people, such as a power plant director. Now, the problem is not that the report contained no such evidence from people in dangerous positions within Iraq. The problem is the report contained no evdience whatsoever of current Iraqi activities regarding chem/bio/nuke weapons.

It really all comes down to who you believe and who you don't. The fact that there have been no photographs, satellite or other, is really extraordinary. Let's face it: none of this stuff is going to matter in a few months anyway (if it exists) because it'll have been destroyed. Satellite photos would be extremely valuable though, because contrary to US propaganda (courtesy of Donald Rumsfeld) nuclear or biological weapons factories cannot be hidden without an obvious source of exhaust. They can't be hidden underground or in mosques or whatever they'll have you believe, they are extremely easy to find if they exist at all however not easy to hide.

Adam:
"Now, the problem is not that the report contained no such evidence from people in dangerous positions within Iraq. The problem is the report contained no evdience whatsoever of current Iraqi activities regarding chem/bio/nuke weapons."

That's because evidence of current Iraqi activities regarding chem/bio/nuke weapons most likely would come from people in dangerous positions within Iraq.

I agree with Adam. A very large documentation about evidence, with no evidence whatsoever.

Then do not call it the evidence of a biological/chemical/nuclear threat. That is not all too difficult to do, is it?

Originally posted by Giskard
Adam:
"Now, the problem is not that the report contained no such evidence from people in dangerous positions within Iraq. The problem is the report contained no evdience whatsoever of current Iraqi activities regarding chem/bio/nuke weapons."

That's because evidence of current Iraqi activities regarding chem/bio/nuke weapons most likely would come from people in dangerous positions within Iraq.

So, what? You think "maybe" and "most likely" is good enough to go to war? Good enough for lots of death and destruction?