Mediaboss Marketing

The firm, together with partners Martyn Day and Sapna Malik and solicitor Anna Crowther, deny charges of misconduct relating to the handling of claims against British troops following a 2004 battle in southern Iraq. Allegations that troops had tortured and murdered prisoners taken after the Battle of Danny Boy were dismissed as the product of deliberate and calculated lies by the Al-Sweady public inquiry in 2014.

Representing the firm, Patricia Robertson QC of Fountain Court Chambers said the case had a wider significance for all solicitors and warned that a finding of misconduct might stop others from speaking up or acting in difficult cases. Day had been convinced that his Iraqi clients were telling the truth when he went public with allegations at a press conference in 2008, she said.

While Day had been sucked in by a series of lies, he had made efforts to check their veracity with doctors and the British Army before the conference, Robertson told the tribunal.

Earlier, the tribunal heard that the firm had pursued claims against troops while knowing its clients were members of an Iraqi insurgent militia rather than civilian bystanders.

For the prosecution, Fountain Courts Timothy Dutton QC said emails in the build-up to the press conference showed Day was alive to the possibility the clients were concocting the story to embarrass the British Army.

It was known that their clients might have been lying and might have been members of the [insurgent] Mahdi Army. The risk was that files were being put in the public domain as containing the truth. The risk was that it would cause maximum damage not only to the British Army as an institution, but to British soldiers and their families, Dutton said.

Malik was also accused of recklessness in not speaking up to question what was going to be said at the press conference, despite being party to discussions in the build-up. The tribunal heard she was a trusted colleague of Day and could have freely expressed any reservations she had.

Defending the decision to hold the press conference, Robertson said: It is fair to say Martyn Day, in making use of the media, wanted that to be effective and powerful. He says in his experience use of the media to get the message out there does serve a legitimate purpose in flushing out evidence and bringing to bear pressure on the decision makers.

Prosecution opening statements also referred to a key document held by Leigh Day which the SRA maintains could have undermined allegations of atrocities had it been disclosed ahead of the Al-Sweady inquiry.

Dutton said that any defence argument that it was overwhelmed by the volume of material would not hold water. If youre going to embark on international law claims where your documents are going to grow, all the more reason to have a system in place to identify all relevant documents, he said.

Robertson told the tribunal that withholding the document, known as the OMS list, was a cock-up that was admitted and much regretted. But she insisted this was not a silver bullet to bring down the entire case and said the Al-Sweady Inquiry had continued for a year after the document was disclosed to it.

Dutton stressed that the SRA was not suggesting Day had been dishonest but that he was pre-disposed towards wanting to accept his clients account and was not approaching the case with openness and an inquisitive mind.

In total Leigh Day received around 9.5m in fees from all the claims it brought, the tribunal heard.

The hearing, which is expected to last seven weeks, continues. This week the tribunal will hear evidence from witnesses including Colonel James Coote, who was at the time a major commanding British troops.

All respondents deny wrongdoing.

View post:
Iraq verdict 'could deter future claims' - Law Gazette

Tony Blair pointed to the slaughter in Syria as justification for his decision to go to war in Iraq .

The former Prime Minister remains unrepetentant about the 2003 invasion which cost the lives of 179 British personnel and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis.

He said if Saddam Hussein had not be ousted then Iraq would now pose the same danger as Syrias Bashar al Assad or North Koreas Kim Jong-un.

If you look at what Assad has done in Syria or the guy in North Korea I personally believe we would be in same position if we had left Saddam there. Thats my view other people can take a different view, he said.

Mr Blair also said he was attacked on Iraq because his political opponents on the right saw his brand of politics as a threat.

A lot of these people on the right wing who were attacking people were people who would be attacking me if I hadnt done Iraq.

I dont

Mr Blair made the remarks as he opened up about why he is going back into politics 20 years after his landslide victory.

This Brexit thing has given me a direct motivation to get more involved in the politics, he declares.

You need to get your hands dirty and I will.

Blair sounds genuinely concerned for the country being sold a Brexit dream which may quickly become a nightmare.

We dont know yet what the final deal on Brexit will be, he says, full of the old Blair messianic vigour.

We are advocating a very simple British common sense position, which is to say, lets see what the Tories come up with first. Because there is a bit of the Tory Party determined to deliver Brexit no matter what the cost.

Read more from the original source:
Tony Blair justifies 2003 Iraq war by pointing at slaughter in Syria and saying we needed to get rid of Saddam - Mirror.co.uk

This picture taken 26 December 2011 shows the Pentagon building in Washington, DC

STAFF/AFP/Getty Images

WASHINGTON -- The White House is giving the Pentagon greater flexibility to determine the number of U.S. troops in Iraq and Syria, in another move by President Donald Trump to shift greater power to his military leaders.

The decision will give Defense Secretary Jim Mattis the authority to send more forces into Syria, to assist U.S.-backed local troops as they move to retake Raqqa from the Islamic State group, which has used the city as a de facto capital.

It will also let him adjust the force numbers in Iraq, in the ongoing fight to oust the Islamic State group from Mosul and stabilize it as the rebuilding begins.

The Pentagon has already been making quiet, incremental additions to the troop levels in both countries in recent months, adding hundreds of Marines in Syria to provide artillery support, and sending more advisers into Iraq to work with units closer to the fight in Mosul. Those moves were done with White House approval, but without any formal adjustment to the longstanding troop caps that had been set by the Obama administration.

Dana White, chief spokesperson for the Pentagon, said Wednesday that Mattis has not made any changes yet to the current authorized force levels.

Under the Obama White House, military leaders chafed about micromanagement that forced commanders to get approvals for routine tactical decisions and personnel moves. They also had to provide justification for any troops sent into war zones. Commanders have argued that they should be able to determine troop deployments based on the military capabilities they believe are needed at any given time.

The new authority will provide greater transparency about the actual number of U.S. forces in Iraq and Syria after several years of public confusion about the accurate totals. Under the Obama-mandated caps, the U.S. was limited to 503 officially deployed troops in Syria, and 5,262 in Iraq. The Pentagon, however, has closer to 7,000 in Iraq, and hundreds more than the cap in Syria, but doesn't count them because they are on temporary duty or not counted under specific personnel rules.

The change, however, could trigger concerns particularly in Iraq, where there are political sensitivities about the footprint of American and coalition troops and fears about occupation forces. Officials worry that if they publicly acknowledge there are thousands more troops there, it could fuel opposition and problems for the Iraqi government.

Trump's decision applies only to the two countries, and so far does not affect Afghanistan, although that change has also been discussed.

"This does not represent a change in our mission in Iraq and Syria to defeat ISIS," said White, using another name for the Islamic State group. She said the U.S. will continue to work through and with local forces, but that giving Mattis the authority to make troop-level decisions will allow commanders to be "more agile, adaptive and efficient in supporting our partners, and enables decisions that benefit unit readiness, cohesion and lethality."

She added that the change will allow the Pentagon be more open with Congress and the public.

2017 The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Continued here:
Trump gives Pentagon power to determine US troop levels in Iraq, Syria - CBS News

SOUTHWEST ASIA(ENEWSPF)April 28, 2017 U.S. and coalition military forces continued to attack the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria yesterday, conducting 28 strikes consisting of 53 engagements, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve officials reported today.

Officials reported details of yesterdays strikes, noting that assessments of results are based on initial reports.

Strikes in Syria

In Syria, coalition military forces conducted 17 strikes consisting of 20 engagements against ISIS targets:

Additionally, a strike was conducted April 26 that closed within the last 24 hours:

Strikes in Iraq

In Iraq, coalition military forces conducted nine strikes consisting of 47 engagements against ISIS targets:

These strikes were conducted as part of Operation Inherent Resolve, the operation to destroy ISIS in Iraq and Syria. The destruction of ISIS targets in Iraq and Syria also further limits the groups ability to project terror and conduct external operations throughout the region and the rest of the world, task force officials said.

The list above contains all strikes conducted by fighter, attack, bomber, rotary-wing or remotely piloted aircraft; rocket-propelled artillery; and some ground-based tactical artillery when fired on planned targets, officials noted.

Ground-based artillery fired in counterfire or in fire support to maneuver roles is not classified as a strike, they added. A strike, as defined by the coalition, refers to one or more kinetic engagements that occur in roughly the same geographic location to produce a single or cumulative effect. For example, task force officials explained, a single aircraft delivering a single weapon against a lone ISIS vehicle is one strike, but so is multiple aircraft delivering dozens of weapons against a group of ISIS-held buildings and weapon systems in a compound, having the cumulative effect of making that facility harder or impossible to use. Strike assessments are based on initial reports and may be refined, officials said.

The task force does not report the number or type of aircraft employed in a strike, the number of munitions dropped in each strike, or the number of individual munition impact points against a target.

Source: http://defense.gov

Read this article:
Inherent Resolve Strikes Continue Against ISIS Terrorists in Syria, Iraq, April 28, 2017 - eNews Park Forest

The Turkish government gavethe United States less than an hours notice before conducting strikes on partner forces in Iraq and Syria, the U.S. military said on Wednesday, stepping up its criticism of airstrikes the United States said endangered American personnel.

Col. John Dorrian, a U.S. military spokesman, said the lead time failed to provide adequate notice to reposition American forces or warn Kurdish groups with whom the United States is partnering against the Islamic States.

Thats not enough time. And this was notification, certainly not coordination as you would expect from a partner and an ally in the fight against ISIS, he said, using an acronym for the Islamic State.

American officials expressed indignation at the Turkish bombing, which killed as many as 20 Kurdish fighters in Syria and, according to the U.S. military, five Kurdish peshmerga troops in a coordinated attack across the border in northern Iraq. According to the Turkish government, both attacks targeted members of the Kurdistan Workers Party (PKK), which both Ankara and Washington consider a terrorist group.

A defense official, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss operations, described the assault as a massive, highly coordinated attack involving more than 25 strike aircraft.

In Syria, the Turkish jets targeted leadership sites used by the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a Kurdish-dominated force that has emerged as the United States primary military partner in Syria, according to a second U.S. official. Turkey has objected to that alliance because, it says, the SDFs largest component, the Peoples Protection Units (YPG), is a PKK affiliate.

Despite the Turkish position, Dorrian signaled the United States would continue its support for the SDF, as it would for Iraqi government troops across the border.

Theseare forces that have been integral in fighting ISIS. Theyve been reliable in making progress against ISIS fighters under very difficult and dangerous conditions, he said. They have made many, many sacrifices to help defeat ISIS and that keeps the whole world safer. So that is our position on that.

In Syria, U.S. troops were within six miles of the targeted area, far enough to be out of danger but close enough to cause concern about the potential for unintended bloodshed, Dorrian said. While U.S. forces were not as close to the Turkish target area in Iraq, U.S. officials expressed criticism of the fact that the strike was conducted without the consent of the Iraqi government.

Dorrian spoke hours after the Turkish embassy in Washington issued a statement from the countrys Foreign Ministry detailing what it said were the steps Turkey took to make the United States and other countries active in Syria aware of its plans, saying the United States and Russia were duly informed through both military and diplomatic channels.

That included, the ministry said, notifying the U.S. air command center in Qatar and speaking with the head of the U.S. military. A spokesman for Gen. Joseph F. Dunford Jr., chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, could not immediately confirm whether Dunford had spoken with the Turkish officer.

U.S. officials provided a different characterization of what occurred, saying that American personnel had immediately expressed their objections to the Turkish plans when they were notified.

Adding to the U.S. frustration, Dorrian said Turkey had provided only general information ahead of time about where the strikes would occur and who they would target. Less than an hour of notification is an inadequate amount of time to have our forces leave the ops box area that was identified which was a very large ops box, he said, referring to the area in which U.S. forces are operating. So it was an unsafe way to conduct operations.

Dorrian said thatthe United States has sent military personnel to the affected site in Syria to assess the damage to SDF forces.

Thomas Gibbons-Neff and Karen DeYoung contributed to this report.

Go here to read the rest:
Pentagon expands rebuke of Turkey over Iraq, Syria strikes - Washington Post