NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=512242

America quietly sacks its prize witness against Saddam
By Patrick Cockburn
17 April 2004


Once he was a prize witness before congressional committees, arguing that the US must invade Iraq immediately because Saddam Hussein possessed a fearsome arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. Given a top job in Baghdad after the war, he has now been quietly sacked by the US authorities.

Khidir Hamza was the dissident Iraqi nuclear scientist who played an important role persuading Americans to go to war in Iraq. His credentials appeared impeccable because he claimed to have headed Saddam's nuclear programme before defecting in 1994.

After the war, Dr Hamza was rewarded, to the distress of many Iraqi scientists, with a well-paid job as the senior advisor to the Ministry of Science and Technology. Appointed by the Coalition Provisional Authority, he had partial control of Iraq's nuclear and military industries.

It was not a successful appointment, according to sources within the ministry. Dr Hamza seldom turned up for work. He obstructed others from doing their jobs. On 4 March, his contract was not renewed by the CPA. It is now trying to evict him from his house in the heavily guarded "Green Zone" where the CPA has its headquarters. He could not be contacted by The Independent but is believed to have taken up a job with a US company.

Dr Hamza's fall from grace with the US administration is in sharp contrast with the seriousness with which it took his views on WMD before the war. Speaking excellent English, he was also regularly interviewed by US television and quoted by the press.

There were always doubts that Dr Hamza had been as central as he claimed to Saddam's programme to develop a nuclear bomb. Dr Hussain Shahristani, an Iraqi nuclear scientist, tortured and imprisoned under Saddam for refusing to help build a nuclear device, said: "Hamza really was only a minor figure in our nuclear programme and always exaggerated his own importance when he got to the US."

Dr Hamza's own account of his career was that, after being educated in the US, he had been working at Florida State University in 1969 when he was approached by an Iraqi agent. He was told that unless he returned to Iraq his family would be in danger. He came back and was compelled to work for 20 years for Iraq's Atomic Energy Commission on developing an atomic bomb. Deeply opposed to the project, he defected to the US embassy in Hungary in 1994 and swiftly became a persuasive expert witness, testifying as an Iraqi insider on how Saddam was developing a terrifying arsenal. In the lead-up to the war he proclaimed: "Saddam has a whole range of weapons of mass destruction, nuclear, biological and chemical."

It was as if Dr Hamza had studied the agenda of the hawks in the US, who wanted to invade Iraq, and was willing to supply evidence supporting their arguments. Several other Iraqi defectors during the 1990s also produced information which they said proved Saddam was secretly producing WMD, but Dr Hamza was the most convincing because he was able to clothe his evidence in appropriate scientific jargon. He wrote a book, Saddam's Bomb Maker: The Terrifying Inside Story of the Iraqi Nuclear and Biological Weapons Agenda.

One employer in the US decided that his account of his past simply did not stand up to examination but the US government stuck by him and made him a consultant to the US Department of Energy. Dr Hamza also hinted that Saddam had secret links to al-Qa'ida and might give them anthrax.

Back in Baghdad after the fall of Saddam, Dr Hamza's position as a senior advisor was very influential. The US-appointed advisors share control over ministries with Iraqi ministers. The ministry was, among other things, in charge of monitoring and securing the remains of Iraq's nuclear industry.

Dr Hamza's life in Baghdad was not entirely happy. At first he lived outside the Green Zone with his family until a remotely detonated bomb exploded near his car on the morning of Christmas Eve, buckling the doors and blowing out the windows.

He and his son were in the car at the time but were not injured. Dr Hamza asked for and was given a house in the Green Zone. It is this which the CPA is now trying to recover.

Of the Iraqi defectors after the Gulf War in 1991 who built a career in the US by providing evidence that Saddam Hussein was covertly building up an arsenal of WMD, Dr Hamza was the most successful. Once the war was over and no WMD had been found, he was something of an embarrassment, all the more so since he could not do his job.

bump

bump

[Shrugs]

So what's new? They've changed their story about what the war was for so many times, it's natural they will want to sweep away some of the embarrasing details for posterity to overlook.

bump

The author of the article makes it plain that Dr. Hamza was both poor at his job and a target of aggression. What, given those beliefs, is so scandelous about his dismissal?

Hey Deelo's back

The author of the article makes it plain that Dr. Hamza was both poor at his job and a target of aggression. What, given those beliefs, is so scandelous about his dismissal?

He is one of the major persons that were able to convince the people to go to war in Iraq because of the so-called WMDs. Now, after all of this war and killing and destruction by the US, they are sacking him because it is obvious that he was a liar.

Oh, but, don't think that they didn't know he was a liar in the first place. They simply used him to get a "plausible" excuse for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

I remember reading his book and laughing about how Saddam was supposed to have seven nuclear bombs and had tested at least one underground and even though there would be evidence of such things, such things which could be monitored outside of Iraq, there was no evidence to ever show that a nuclear explosion had ever taken place.

The legality of the war is a matter for debate. Hamza was a witness, good or not, how does that make him qualified to head a government agency? There are no so-called weapons of mass destruction. They either are or are not, in Iraq or anywhere else. I've never read his book, but Iraq has persued nuclear technology in the past. And, those claims of radiological contamination left by the US in 1991 could have been a cover story to mask a possible underground detonation. Noone, the world over, was as sure as you are beforehand. I think you let politics and hatred of Americans skew your perspective.

It was not a matter for debate. It was aggression. The Aggressor is always in the wrong.

And do you know what the Cancer rates are in Basra? There are some Shocking "Things" in the hospitals there.

The legality of the war is a matter for debate.

Actually the law is quite clear. It appears to only be a matter of debate to those who are not aware of what the UN resolutions actually said and what International law says.. or there are those who believe that America doesn't have to follow those laws like the rest of us. Then there are those simply confused and seem to think that US law trumps international law outside of their borders. Sure, there is a lot of opinion on the legality.. but the reality is it's not much of a debate. The war was illegal. However, I suppose what is done is done. Now we look towards the clean up of this very messy debacle.

The legality of the war is a matter for debate.

Invading countries, killing thousands, maiming tens of thousands is bad. Illegal. Murderous.

Hamza was a witness, good or not, how does that make him qualified to head a government agency? There are no so-called weapons of mass destruction. They either are or are not, in Iraq or anywhere else. I've never read his book, but Iraq has persued nuclear technology in the past. And, those claims of radiological contamination left by the US in 1991 could have been a cover story to mask a possible underground detonation.

Hamza is a liar. Yes, Iraq pursued nuclear technology prior to 1991. The nuclear testing thing was supposed to have happened in the 80's.

Noone, the world over, was as sure as you are beforehand. I think you let politics and hatred of Americans skew your perspective.

I was always sure that Saddam never had WMDs simply because he is a survivor. He will do whatever is needed to survive and stay in power. I also do not hate all Americans. I only hate idiots like Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and the rest of them that think that the world is theirs and everyone must bow down to them or be killed.

But, it is a matter for debate. Many nations entered into agreement ,basically, that Saddam would be dissarmed or removed. Few of them chose to live up to it. Are the ones who did nothing to honor thier agreements less wrong than those that did? Even the body that facilitaed the agreements refused to do anything. In that case, does it remain in a position to enforce anything?

But, it is a matter for debate. Many nations entered into agreement ,basically, that Saddam would be dissarmed or removed. Few of them chose to live up to it. Are the ones who did nothing to honor thier agreements less wrong than those that did? Even the body that facilitaed the agreements refused to do anything. In that case, does it remain in a position to enforce anything?

He disarmed. That is why you did not find anything in Iraq. He was not in violation. Even after Blix visitied the 600 or so sites that the US gave to him, he did not find anything (this is before the war). The US wanted war. Simple.

Woo Ride of the Valkyries. Deelo Got Pwned :D

But, it is a matter for debate. Many nations entered into agreement ,basically, that Saddam would be dissarmed or removed. Few of them chose to live up to it. Are the ones who did nothing to honor thier agreements less wrong than those that did? Even the body that facilitaed the agreements refused to do anything. In that case, does it remain in a position to enforce anything?

See, this is one of the great myths of the UN resolutions. No where ever did any one call for Saddam's removal. That was only American wishes. It was what the Clinton administration wanted and what Bush did. However it's illegal under international law. The only people saying that is the Americans. It was in fact never adopted in a UN resolution nor condoned under international law nor the UN security council. It's one of the many myths though that is out there.

But, it is a matter for debate. Many nations entered into agreement ,basically, that Saddam would be dissarmed or removed. Few of them chose to live up to it. Are the ones who did nothing to honor thier agreements less wrong than those that did? Even the body that facilitaed the agreements refused to do anything. In that case, does it remain in a position to enforce anything?

He disarmed. That is why you did not find anything in Iraq. He was not in violation. Even after Blix visitied the 600 or so sites that the US gave to him, he did not find anything (this is before the war). The US wanted war. Simple.

Only the all-seeing, such as yourself, knew he was disarmed. i can't remember any statement by any legitimate body that expressed anything more than a notion that he might have disarmed or that the weapons could not be found. Even those governments that opposed the war said that it wasn't the place of the Coalition to disarm or remove him. Notice Coalition, as much as many of you would like to place exclusive blame on parties that you already have a poor opinion of, noone entered this alone.

But, it is a matter for debate. Many nations entered into agreement ,basically, that Saddam would be dissarmed or removed. Few of them chose to live up to it. Are the ones who did nothing to honor thier agreements less wrong than those that did? Even the body that facilitaed the agreements refused to do anything. In that case, does it remain in a position to enforce anything?

See, this is one of the great myths of the UN resolutions. No where ever did any one call for Saddam's removal. That was only American wishes. It was what the Clinton administration wanted and what Bush did. However it's illegal under international law. The only people saying that is the Americans. It was in fact never adopted in a UN resolution nor condoned under international law nor the UN security council. It's one of the many myths though that is out there.

1441 had these things in it. "final chance to comply fully" and "or face serious consequences". What does fully comply mean? What about serious comsequences? Does fully comply mean at Saddams convienience? What are serious consequences? A rap on the nose with a newspaper follwed by 'bad tyrant!, bad tyrant!'. I don't think so, and I don't think anyone who voted in favor of it did either.

But, it is a matter for debate. Many nations entered into agreement ,basically, that Saddam would be dissarmed or removed. Few of them chose to live up to it. Are the ones who did nothing to honor thier agreements less wrong than those that did? Even the body that facilitaed the agreements refused to do anything. In that case, does it remain in a position to enforce anything?

See, this is one of the great myths of the UN resolutions. No where ever did any one call for Saddam's removal. That was only American wishes. It was what the Clinton administration wanted and what Bush did. However it's illegal under international law. The only people saying that is the Americans. It was in fact never adopted in a UN resolution nor condoned under international law nor the UN security council. It's one of the many myths though that is out there.

1441 had these things in it. "final chance to comply fully" and "or face serious consequences". What does fully comply mean? What about serious comsequences? Does fully comply mean at Saddams convienience? What are serious consequences? A rap on the nose with a newspaper follwed by 'bad tyrant!, bad tyrant!'. I don't think so, and I don't think anyone who voted in favor of it did either.

Yes, 1441 did in fact say "serious consequences" which of course was never defined. Because Bush refused to go back to the security council to get it defined because he knew he faced a VETO.. the same VETO that the Americans have used to allow war criminals to get away with their crimes more times then any other nation in the history of the UN. How about when the USA under Reagan gave Saddam WMD to use on Iran.. the UN tried to condemn Saddam for using them, the Americans VETO'd it. I won't even get into Israel, as it's off topic. The war was illegal. The law is clear. You can argue all you like it was moral, it was the right thing to do.. but don't ever call it legal. It wasn't.

This guy was a self-serving bastard with no local support.
They should never have listened to him in the first place.
In a time when the US needs all the local support and credibility it can get over there, it was smart to cut losses.

But, it is a matter for debate. Many nations entered into agreement ,basically, that Saddam would be dissarmed or removed. Few of them chose to live up to it. Are the ones who did nothing to honor thier agreements less wrong than those that did? Even the body that facilitaed the agreements refused to do anything. In that case, does it remain in a position to enforce anything?

See, this is one of the great myths of the UN resolutions. No where ever did any one call for Saddam's removal. That was only American wishes. It was what the Clinton administration wanted and what Bush did. However it's illegal under international law. The only people saying that is the Americans. It was in fact never adopted in a UN resolution nor condoned under international law nor the UN security council. It's one of the many myths though that is out there.

1441 had these things in it. "final chance to comply fully" and "or face serious consequences". What does fully comply mean? What about serious comsequences? Does fully comply mean at Saddams convienience? What are serious consequences? A rap on the nose with a newspaper follwed by 'bad tyrant!, bad tyrant!'. I don't think so, and I don't think anyone who voted in favor of it did either.

Yes, 1441 did in fact say "serious consequences" which of course was never defined. Because Bush refused to go back to the security council to get it defined because he knew he faced a VETO.. the same VETO that the Americans have used to allow war criminals to get away with their crimes more times then any other nation in the history of the UN. How about when the USA under Reagan gave Saddam WMD to use on Iran.. the UN tried to condemn Saddam for using them, the Americans VETO'd it. I won't even get into Israel, as it's off topic. The war was illegal. The law is clear. You can argue all you like it was moral, it was the right thing to do.. but don't ever call it legal. It wasn't.
When the UN is already using all of the economic and diplomatic sanctions that it has the backbone for, what are serious consequences? Site anything you'd like, but I'd rather see your opinion.
Even as far back as the 1980's you want to assign exclusive blame for the actions of many? There was quite a line to give military technology to Saddam in the late 70's and 80's. The line included the US and it's allies and enemies alike. I find the selective amnesia of those who think the US is evil and always wrong amusing. And speaking of vetos, I remember a promised veto by a nation that is viewed heroically,by many, for nothing more than opposing the US for it's own gain ending the debate, in the UN, about the war. No blame for anyone who doesn't live directly to your south? It seems there is plenty to go around. And after all, the US was not the only nation that planned or pushed for the war and isn't the only nation with soldiers in Iraq. The war was both moral and legal and don't say otherwise!

But, it is a matter for debate. Many nations entered into agreement ,basically, that Saddam would be dissarmed or removed. Few of them chose to live up to it. Are the ones who did nothing to honor thier agreements less wrong than those that did? Even the body that facilitaed the agreements refused to do anything. In that case, does it remain in a position to enforce anything?

See, this is one of the great myths of the UN resolutions. No where ever did any one call for Saddam's removal. That was only American wishes. It was what the Clinton administration wanted and what Bush did. However it's illegal under international law. The only people saying that is the Americans. It was in fact never adopted in a UN resolution nor condoned under international law nor the UN security council. It's one of the many myths though that is out there.

1441 had these things in it. "final chance to comply fully" and "or face serious consequences". What does fully comply mean? What about serious comsequences? Does fully comply mean at Saddams convienience? What are serious consequences? A rap on the nose with a newspaper follwed by 'bad tyrant!, bad tyrant!'. I don't think so, and I don't think anyone who voted in favor of it did either.

Yes, 1441 did in fact say "serious consequences" which of course was never defined. Because Bush refused to go back to the security council to get it defined because he knew he faced a VETO.. the same VETO that the Americans have used to allow war criminals to get away with their crimes more times then any other nation in the history of the UN. How about when the USA under Reagan gave Saddam WMD to use on Iran.. the UN tried to condemn Saddam for using them, the Americans VETO'd it. I won't even get into Israel, as it's off topic. The war was illegal. The law is clear. You can argue all you like it was moral, it was the right thing to do.. but don't ever call it legal. It wasn't.
The war was both moral and legal and don't say otherwise!

You may believe the war was moral, that is your right. However, the war was NOT legal and that whether you like it or not is a FACT! Not an opinion, but a fact. I'm done.

Lol. I think We will.

I cant quite understand your logic. Are you saying that Because the U.N isnt great that The war was legal?

And we arent saying the U.S is stupid And Bad. We are saying they've made an Awful mess.

I don't give a shit why we went to war. We captured the enemy capital in a matter of weeks, a stunning feat, that. Further, these insurgents are a bunch of amateurs, we only suffered a few hundred casualties in over a year. Compare this to wars past, in which many nations could suffer tens millions of casualties a year. We'll do with Iraq as we please, what exactly is the rest of the world going to do about it? Don't give me some shit about "American arrogance", it's tiring, because we all know that every nation would love to have as much power as we do.

Lol. I think We will.

I cant quite understand your logic. Are you saying that Because the U.N isnt great that The war was legal?

And we arent saying the U.S is stupid And Bad. We are saying they've made an Awful mess.

I wasn't actually trying to prevent anyone disagreeing with me. I didn't really like being told not to say the war was legal anymore and when I feel I've been slighted, I can be petty. What I'm saying about the war being legal is this, many nations agreed in principle to act if Saddam did not comply fully with UN resolutions. Leave the language of it aside, if every economic and diplomatic sanction is in place and you give a final notice and basically say 'or else', what do you think 'or else' meant? I think it meant military action and I believe that those who agreed to it did as well. At the last moment many backed out and cried foul. That doesn't put those who kept thier word in violation of law.

I don't give a shit why we went to war. We captured the enemy capital in a matter of weeks, a stunning feat, that. Further, these insurgents are a bunch of amateurs, we only suffered a few hundred casualties in over a year. Compare this to wars past, in which many nations could suffer tens millions of casualties a year. We'll do with Iraq as we please, what exactly is the rest of the world going to do about it? Don't give me some shit about "American arrogance", it's tiring, because we all know that every nation would love to have as much power as we do.

You are scary, in my opinion.

Well not everyone is as into this forum as us.
Lets not destroy him just yet. Take pity...

I don't give a shit why we went to war. We captured the enemy capital in a matter of weeks, Further, these insurgents are a bunch of amateurs, we only suffered a few hundred casualties in over a year. Compare this to wars past, in which many nations could suffer tens millions of casualties a year. We'll do with Iraq as we please, what exactly is the rest of the world going to do about it? Don't give me some shit about "American arrogance", it's tiring, because we all know that every nation would love to have as much power as we do.

You are scary, in my opinion.

and probably not an American, who in the US of A ever uses a phrase like "a stunning feat, that". I think he's some type of furriner pretending to be a yankee imperialist dog.

What a tryhard.

God bless America