British government faces fresh questions over whether attorney general wavered on legality of the Iraq war

Prime Minister Tony Blair faced further controversy about the legality of the Iraq war, after a fresh report indicated the government's top legal adviser changed his mind on the issue shortly before the invasion.

Several British TV stations and newspapers have reported that Attorney General Lord Goldsmith wavered in the advice he gave to the government in the weeks leading to the war, first believing the invasion could be deemed illegal without a further United Nations resolution and then deciding it could be justified under existing U.N. resolutions.

The government has repeatedly refused to publish his full advice and has denied politically pressuring the attorney general.

A resignation letter written by the Foreign Office's deputy legal adviser, released Wednesday under the Freedom of Information Act, appeared to add weight to reports that Goldsmith's opinion had shifted.

Elizabeth Wilmshurst, who quit her post because she was opposed to the looming war, wrote on March 18, 2003 that "an unlawful use of force on such a scale amounts to the crime of aggression."

Two sentences in the letter were blacked out by the government. But Channel 4 News said Wednesday it had obtained the missing material and said Wilmshurst had described how Goldsmith's opinion had changed.

"My views accord with the advice that has been given consistently in this office, before and after the adoption of U.N. Security Council resolution 1441, and with what the Attorney General gave us to understand was his view prior to his letter of 7th of March," Channel 4 quoted the letter as saying. "The view expressed in that letter has of course changed again into what is now the official line."

According to several reports including by the BBC and leading British newspapers, Goldsmith warned the government on March 7 that an invasion of Iraq could be deemed illegal, but in a parliamentary written statement by Goldsmith ten days later, allegedly drafted with the help of Blair's office, said a war in Iraq would be legal.

Political opponents on Wednesday rounded on the government for censoring Wilmshurst's letter and accused ministers of a cover up.

"The government blacked-out that section not in the public interest, but in the government interest," said Menzies Campbell, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Liberal Democrats, who opposed the war.

Former Cabinet minister Clare Short, a bitter critic of the war, said the letter was devastating.

"The bit that was blacked-out shows that the attorney general changed his mind twice in a matter of days before he gave advice to the Cabinet when he just said unequivocally, `My view is that there is legal authority for war', and kept from the Cabinet any suggestion that he had had doubts about it," she said.

A spokesman for the attorney general said Goldsmith had repeatedly made clear that his advice to Parliament was "his own genuinely held independent view, that military action in Iraq was lawful."

Michael Ancram, foreign affairs spokesman for the main opposition Conservatives, called on the government to explain how Goldsmith reached his conclusion that war would be legal.

"What they have done is not to decrease the amount of doubt and mistrust that there is about the way that the government handled the run-up to the Iraq war, but actually increased it," he said. "This is damning evidence, unless it is explained."

2005-03-24T00:12:27Z By ED JOHNSON Associated Press Writer (AP) - LONDON

Union Lawsuit Over HIV Drug Price Hike Wins Court OK

A union health plan can press on with a class-action lawsuit accusing pharmaceutical giant Abbott Laboratories of artificially inflating the price of an HIV "booster" drug in an illegal attempt to leverage its monopoly in the marketplace.

Illinois-based Abbott is one of several drug companies that manufacture protease inhibitors, the most potent class of drugs used to combat HIV. Abbott patented, made and sold the prescription drug Norvir. When Norvir is prescribed in tandem with other protease inhibitors, it "boosts" the antiviral effect of the PIs and reduces their harmful side effects.

In September 2000 Abbott introduced Kaletra, its own boosted PI regimen containing both Norvir and the Abbott-made PI lopinavir. Kaletra can cause significant side effects, such as increased cholesterol and pancreatitis, according to the Food and Drug Administration. By June 2003 Kaletra had secured a 75 percent share of the market for protease inhibitors.

After that time, two competing drug companies began making inroads into Kaletra's dominant share of the PI market when they each introduced a PI capable of being boosted by Norvir.

In December 2003 Abbott increased the wholesale price of Norvir by 478 percent, according to court records. By doing so Abbott significantly raised the cost of using all PIs in the boosted market. However, it did not impose a similar price increase on Kaletra. As a result, it became substantially cheaper to use Kaletra than to use the PIs from other manufacturers.

In October 2004 the Service Employees International Union's Health and Welfare Fund, which provides health coverage to thousands of union members and their families, sued Abbott, alleging the Norvir price increase was an illegal attempt by the company to leverage its monopoly in the PI market.

The class-action complaint said Abbott violated the Sherman Antitrust Act; engaged in fraudulent, unfair or deceptive business practices under California law; and was unjustly enriched.

The SEIU seeks to represent a nationwide class of consumers, health insurers, and union health and welfare funds who have paid increased prices for Norvir, according to court records.

Although Abbott moved for summary judgment, U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilken of the Northern District of California refused to dismiss the case. She said the SEIU has standing to seek injunctive relief under the Sherman Act, even though it is neither a consumer nor a competitor in the market.

"Here, plaintiff alleges that it was injured in the relevant marketplace by having to pay artificially inflated prices for Norvir for its use in conjunction with other PIs," the judge said.

In addition Judge Wilken rejected Abbott's argument that its patents preclude liability under federal antitrust law.

"The court is not willing, at this early juncture in this litigation, to rule that defendant can patent a procedure in which HIV patients take a drug manufactured and sold by a third party along with defendant's own," she said.

Judge Wilken also sustained the SEIU's claims for unfair competition and unjust enrichment.

The SEIU represents 1.8 million workers in various service-related industries, including health care, building services and government.

By Rae Theodore
Service Employees International Union Health & Welfare Fund v. Abbott Laboratories, No. C 04-4203 CW, 2005 WL 528323, order issued (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2005). Infectious Disease Litigation Reporter Volume 18, Issue 08 03/24/2005

HIV DRUGS: Groups slam Indian decision on patent law

International aid groups on Wednesday slammed the Indian Parliament's decision to approve patent legislation that ends the decades-old practice of allowing domestic drug companies to make low-cost copies of expensive Western medicines, saying hundreds of thousands of poor people will be affected.

The changes, expected to become law later this week, stem from India's membership in the World Trade Organization, which enhances the country's participation in global trade but requires it to enforce stricter patent rules for its US$5 billion (euro3.8 billion) pharmaceutical industry.

But international aid groups said Wednesday the legislation will curb the supply of cheap generic drugs to impoverished nations in Africa, Asia and Latin America, threatening the survival of hundreds of thousands of AIDS and cancer patients.

Some 50 percent of 700,000 HIV patients taking antiretroviral medicines in Africa, Asia and Latin America rely on low-cost drugs from Indian companies. A month's dose of a generic AIDS drug cocktail costs US$30 (euro22), or 5 percent of the price of similar drugs sold by European and American pharmaceutical giants.

"Because India is one of the world's biggest producers of generic drugs, this law will have a severe knock-on effect on many developing countries which depend on imported generic drugs from India," said Samar Verma, regional policy adviser at Oxfam International.

The Paris-based Doctors Without Borders on Wednesday described the Indian move as "the beginning of the end of affordable generics."

The powerful lower house of Parliament approved the bill Tuesday after the government agreed to last-minute changes demanded by leftist allies to placate fears that multinational companies could extend the duration of their patents indefinitely and gain dominance of India's market.

The bill is widely expected to become law later this week when it is expected to be passed by Parliament's upper house, where the governing coalition and its Communist allies have a majority.

The amendments sought to tighten the definition of "new inventions" to prevent drug companies from winning new patents by making minor changes to existing drugs. The proposed law would also permit patents to be challenged even before they are granted -- a move opposed by multinationals but long demanded by the domestic industry.

Ellen 't Hoen of Doctors Without Borders, who led representatives from more than two dozen aid groups, said the bill was still vague in many key areas and allowed for abuses by multinational companies.

"We are deeply disturbed and concerned that you are failing to listen to the voices of your people who have entrusted you with their welfare, not to mention the poor in the developing world who rely on affordable medicine from India," the aid groups said in a letter to Sonia Gandhi, the leader of the governing Congress party.

A key concern relates to a provision allowing the government to override patents on medicines that a large number of people need, but can't afford to buy. The bill says the government must wait at least three years before this is allowed, except in a national emergency.

Even though India has some 5.1 million HIV-infected people -- the second largest number after South Africa -- the disease is not seen as a national emergency, and Indian companies will therefore no longer be allowed to copy new inventions in AIDS treatment, Hoen said.

Another concern relates to royalties to be paid by generic producers to the companies holding patents for drugs. The new law doesn't set any cap on royalty rates, thus giving a big leverage to multinational companies, said Fatima Hassan of the South Africa-based Treatment Action Campaign.

Although international norms for royalties are in the range of 3 percent to 4 percent, Hassan said GlaxoSmithKline once tried to charge a 40 percent royalty for a lifesaving drug in South Africa until activists and the courts intervened.

The Associated Press NEW DELHI
By RAJESH MAHAPATRA Associated Press Writer MAR. 23 4:07 A.M. ET

Hinzman loses second step, now we go to the third

Refusers Seeking Freedom
March 24, 2005

Jeremy Hinzman

More than a year ago Jeremy Hinzman left the Army base in Ft. Bragg, North Carolina and drove north with this family to Canada. Hinzman, who had applied for a conscientious objection discharge from the Army, was denied. After this denial, Hinzman decided that leaving for Canada was his only option to escape being re-deployed to Iraq. Hinzman applied with the Canadian government to gain refugee status. In December of 2004 he appeared before the Canadian Immigration Refugee Board (IRB) to plead his case. Hinzman argued that if he were returned to the U.S., the U.S. government would persecute him for his refusal to fight in an “illegal war” in Iraq.

After three months a decision was announced today by Canadian Immigration. Jeremy Hinzman and his family were found “not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and rejected their claims of refugee protection.”[i] The refugee committee decided that the U.S. government or the Military would not persecute Hinzman if he were to return to face a military tribunal. In particular the committee felt the democratic nature of the U.S. government created a heavy burden of proof.

Hinzman will now appeal his claim in the Canadian federal court. When he was asked prior to the decision what will happen if it is denied, Hinzman replied, “I will appeal as many times as possible and, when those are exhausted, apply to be able to stay on compassionate and humanitarian grounds.”

Others

There are now over 50 other U.S. refusers seeking asylum from the U.S. Military in Canada. Brandon Hughey will be next refuser to appear before the Canadian Immigration board to claim a refugee status. Like Jeremy Hinzman, Hughey also claims the war in Iraq to be an illegal operation. Although there is a strong network of support in Canada for those resisting the war, it is expected that Hughey and many others who are in line will face the same fate as Hinzman before the refugee board.

Already the number of those contemplating fleeing to Canada is on the rise and with an increased threat of the military draft Canada will be facing a much larger problem than it is now. These cases of desertion from the U.S. military on the grounds of conscientious objection (CO) are a reflection of a larger problem. Many COs currently face hardships by the military here in the U.S. We must continue in our work to protect and extend the rights of COs. Sign-up now to participate in CCW’s National Lobby-day on May 16th for the rights of conscientious objectors.

For more information on the lobby day visit:

www.nisbco.org/LobbyDay05/lobbyday.html

[i] Hinzman Decision,
“http://www.irb-cisr.gc.ca/en/decisions/public/hinzman/hinz_e.htm”

Yours for Peace and Justice,
Center on Conscience & War
1830 Connecticut Ave. NW
Washington, DC 20009
Ph: 202-483-2220
Fax: 202-483-1246
www.nisbco.org


Join us on May 15 for our Annual Advisory Meeting and
on May 16 for our Anti-Draft/Pro-conscientious Objector Lobby Day

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
CLAIMS FOR REFUGEE PROTECTION OF
JEREMY HINZMAN, NGA THI NGUYEN, LIAM LIEM NGUYEN HINZMAN

Jeremy Hinzman, his wife, and their son, seek refugee protection in Canada. Mr. Hinzman enlisted in the US military and during his course of training and service gradually came to the conclusion that he could not participate in offensive operations. He sought conscientious objector non-combatant status from the US military while he was deployed in Afghanistan. His application was refused on the basis that he was willing to conduct defensive operations as a combatant, although not willing to conduct offensive operations as a combatant. Mr. Hinzman then resumed his regular military duties and training. When he received notice of his unit’s deployment to Iraq, he left the military without leave and came to Canada with his Family.

Mr. Hinzman claims that he is a conscientious objector. He fears that as a result of his desertion from the US military, he will be prosecuted and any punishment he faces as a result would be persecution for following his conscience. He also asserted that his likely sentence as a result of a court martial would amount to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

Counsel to the Solicitor General of Canada (“S-G”) argued that Mr. Hinzman had a heavy legal burden to overcome in establishing his claim since the US is a democratic state. In addition, the S-G submitted that Mr. Hinzman does not meet the criteria of a conscientious objector. The S-G also asserted that Mr. Hinzman failed to demonstrate that the punishment he would likely receive for desertion from the US military would be excessive and amount to cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.

The Refugee Protection Division (“RPD”) found Mr. Hinzman, his wife and son not to be Convention refugees or persons in need of protection and rejected their claims for refugee protection.

The RPD found that the claimants would be afforded the full protection of a fair and independent military and civilian judicial process in the U.S. As a result they had not rebutted the presumption of state protection and their claims for refugee protection must fail. The RPD also dealt with other matters in the public interest as they had been raised, including that Mr. Hinzman was not a conscientious objector and that the punishment Mr. Hinzman would likely receive as a result of his desertion was not excessive or disproportionately severe.

With respect to the claims of Mr. Hinzman’s wife and son, the RPD found that there was no evidence to support their claim that they would face a serious possibility of persecution in the US as a result of being part of Mr. Hinzman’s family, nor was there any evidence to support their claim that they would face serious harm as a result of any punishment Mr. Hinzman may receive as a result of his desertion from the US military.

--
I freed a thousand slaves. I could have freed a thousand more
if only they knew they were slaves. - Harriet Tubman

dao parting

You and I assumed forever When we became companions. But now, unhappy, you are leaving The sky turns to bitter candescence Unslaked by resignation. There are times when we have been lucky enough to have companions on our spiritual path, but the time of parting often comes without welcome. When our friends decide to leave, we are often left with doubt, confusion, and sometimes guilt. Anyone may leave the path. They won’t suffer damnation; they will only walk a different path. The rule for those who follow Tao is this: Walk the path together as long as you can, and when you must part, never hold your companion back. Should one seek to have no feelings at all regarding friends? After all, the sages constantly warn against attachment. Yet emotion is part of what makes us human. We may understand philosophically why a companion must leave, but we need not deny our feelings as we walk on alone. parting 365 Tao Daily Meditations Deng Ming-Dao ISBN 0-06-250223-9 There was by then a strong core of women, most of whom were illiterate, and who had never taken part in any kind of organization. They loved coming to the "office" in Janakpur, a comfortable and supportive environment with women of many backgrounds, free from the constraints of the village. Through being associated with a development project they were soon making paintings promoting Vitamin A, the chance to vote, safe sex and saying "no" to drugs. Proud of their traditional culture, they continued to illustrate Maithil rituals or to make paintings of gods Ram and Sita who, according to legend, married in Janakpur. And in the "office" where they sang songs or told tales of the Hindu gods, they naturally painted scenes from the Ramayana or from Maithil songs and folktales. Many women have enjoyed painting the Maithil tale of Anjur, a tale in which a new bride is made to do impossible tasks by her jealous sisters-in-law, and each time is helped by sympathetic birds or snakes. They often mix images of other tales with Anjur's tale, and similarly Gods will appear in scenes of family planning. This mixing of themes is a reflection of the real world of the Janakpur artists today. this painting is called "two pregnant elephants" the artist: Indrakala Karna My father worked in Nepal but I was raised in a village in India. I only saw him two days a year. We were 6 brothers and 3 sisters. My father only had enough money to educate the boys. We three sisters did all the cooking and cleaning, and in our spare time made mats, baskets, mud shelves, stoves and grain containers. We ground flour with a wheel and passed much of the day husking rice with a traditional "deki." With my sisters-in-law I also learned how to make the traditional designs our caste makes for marriages. I loved learning Maithili songs. I only learned to write letters with mud on the wall, and then I'd try to make whole words from the songs. My sisters-in-law corrected my spelling and let me copy songs from their songbooks. In this way I learned to read and write. The men in my family arranged my marriage. My brother and my husband's brother both met before a priest and lifted a metal vessel (lota) together, then they hugged each other. This ritual meant I could never marry anyone else. On that same day the husband's family took my dowry. I was seventeen. My husband earned money from our land. For whatever we needed-- such as pencils and slate for our children in school--we sold rice. After 18 years my husband died. He used to drink a lot and then he grew ill. He was never a great husband. He cursed and beat me because he questioned what I knew, even though he didn't know too much. I knew how to feed guests, but he questioned me and beat me. Heíd tell the children to study but if they made a mistake, he would tear up their books. So after he died some of his family gave me some help, but mainly I supported myself by hand rolling cigarettes for sale in a local shop. Two years later, work came to me to make the traditional paintings of my caste. Now my life is very different. My only worry is how to marry my son with a good girl. text and images © JWDC T A O t e C H I N G f i f t y - t h r e e If I have even just a little sense, I will walk on the main road and my only fear will be of straying from it. Keeping to the main road is easy, But people love to be sidetracked. When the court is arrayed in splendor, The fields are full of weeds, And the granaries are bare. Some wear gorgeous clothes, Carry sharp swords, And indulge themselves with food and drink; They have more possessions than they can use. They are robber barons. This is certainly not the way of Tao. — translation by GIA-FU FENG The great Way is easy, yet people prefer the side paths. Be aware when things are out of balance. Stay centered within the Tao. When rich speculators prosper While farmers lose their land; when government officials spend money on weapons instead of cures; when the upper class is extravagant and irresponsible while the poor have nowhere to turn — all this is robbery and chaos. It is not in keeping with the Tao. Seeing into darkness is clarity. Knowing how to yield is strength. Use your own light and return to the source of light. This is called practicing eternity. — translation by STEVEN MITCHELL a reading list of books and interpretations of the Daodejing is available at http://wwww.duckdaotsu.org/dao_books.html for a meditation sent to your email address each day, please write ’subscribe tao’ in the subject line and send to lisbeth at duckdaotsu