Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Alarm Over Cargo Ships Tracked By Intelligence
Independent (UK) ^ | 2-20-2003 | Nigel Morris/Ben Russell

Posted on 02/19/2003 7:54:38 PM PST by blam

Alarm over cargo ships tracked by intelligence

By Nigel Morris and Ben Russell
20 February 2003

Ministers will face questions in Parliament next week over fears that Saddam Hussein could be evading United Nations inspections by hiding chemical and biological weapons on the high seas.

Security experts and senior MPs expressed alarm last night at the prospect that three giant cargo ships are being tracked by Western intelligence agencies because they could be carrying deadly Iraqi weapons.

In response to a report in The Independent yesterday, the Government will also be questioned over Britain's defence against illegal maritime trafficking in arms, people and drugs. Shipping industry sources said the three vessels set sail three months ago, spending much of their time in the Indian Ocean.

John Eldridge, the editor of Jane's Nuclear, Biological and Chemical Defence, said he was not surprised President Saddam might have decided to hide his illicit weapons at sea. He said: "It seems an extremely elegant scheme with a view to hiding these things until the heat is off."

Mr Eldridge said the Iraqi regime could easily have smuggled out the weapons in sealed containers through neighbouring countries. He said: "There's no way you could detect what they were without boarding the ship.

"Saddam never ceases to surprise the West with some of his off-the-wall actions."

Stuart Syrad, a maritime security consultant and former senior officer with the Special Boat Service, agreed the report was credible. "It's such a simple answer for Iraq to put the stuff at sea so that inspectors don't have the opportunity of looking at it – it's just taken a while for people to work that one out."

Mr Eldridge said an alternative "al-Qa'ida navy", thought to number some 20 ships, which are suspected of supplying arms and explosives to terrorist groups, was already being monitored.

"There's a great unholy alliance between these organisations because gun-running is big business," he said.

Paul Keetch, the Liberal Democrat defence spokesman, pledged to pursue the issue with ministers when the Commons returned next week.

"The report in The Independent demonstrates that the seas are still a potential threat," he said.

"The fact that Iraqi shipping would appear not to be properly monitored is very worrying. We have had forces surrounding Iraq since the last Gulf War. This demonstrates once again the danger of letting our eye go off the ball."

He said Britain's status as an island nation made it particularly vulnerable to threats from international shipping.

Bernard Jenkin, the shadow Defence Secretary, said: "This is completely consistent with Saddam's defiance of the international inspectors. He is hiding weapons of mass destruction."

The Labour MP Kevan Jones, who sits on the Commons Defence Select Committee, said members would discuss the revelation at their next meeting. It was also likely to be raised next week when they privately met Geoff Hoon, the Secretary of State for Defence. He said: "This is worrying. It just demonstrates the possibility that the weapons Saddam clearly has are being transported."

David Cockroft, the general secretary of the International Transport Workers' Federation, said he had no knowledge of any vessels carrying Iraqi weapons. But he warned that smuggling of weapons, drugs and people by sea was rife, with unscrupulous ship owners operating under flags of convenience.

Reports from Washington in December indicated that up to 15 ships were being operated by al-Qa'ida.

But Mr Cockroft warned that intelligence services did not know where ships were or what were their destinations.

He said: "Everybody knows it is normal to be able to buy a qualification certificate for a ship's officer from the right people."

The three giant cargo ships left port in late November, a few days after UN weapons inspectors began their search for the alleged Iraqi arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.


TOPICS: Front Page News; United Kingdom
KEYWORDS: alarm; cargo; intelligence; libdems; ships
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

1 posted on 02/19/2003 7:54:39 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: blam
What is so difficult about stopping, boarding, and thoroughly searching these ships. Why the hand-wringing? They are, after all, in the middle of the Indian Ocean. They are not going to get to a safer place. We board suspected ships all the time. Hell, Osama himself may be on one of these things, or it might just be a load of rotten oysters. Find out for crying out loud.
2 posted on 02/19/2003 7:59:27 PM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
looks like someone might have found something here.....
3 posted on 02/19/2003 8:02:19 PM PST by rface (Ashland, Missouri to Wash. D.C. March 1, 2003 "Supporting our Troops")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
Maybe I'll feel better after I watch Nuclear; Bombing Of Bikini Atoll coming up on the Discover Channel. lol.
4 posted on 02/19/2003 8:05:24 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam
LENGTHY RELATED THREAD HERE:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/846384/posts
5 posted on 02/19/2003 8:12:08 PM PST by Cindy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
The hand wringing is due to the fact that if indeed these ships are carrying this stuff, that the crew will scuttle the ships to avoid this stuff seeing the light of day and it would present a huge ecological disaster, my bet is they are waiting for a time to do it that will limit the ability for the ships being scuttled.
6 posted on 02/19/2003 8:13:58 PM PST by lexington minuteman 1775
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Cindy
"LENGTHY RELATED THREAD HERE: "

Yup. That's was yesterdays article. I hoped this one may have something new.

7 posted on 02/19/2003 8:14:45 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: blam
In addition to being the 4th or 5th time this has been posted in the last 24 hours, on the Defense Department briefing this morning Rumsfeld and Myers were ask about this report and said they knew nothing about it and in checking were unable to confirm. Or, something to that effect.
8 posted on 02/19/2003 8:17:55 PM PST by Higgymonster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #9 Removed by Moderator

To: blam
Maybe this is just a ruse to get our attention away from other ships actually going somewhere. I think it would be stupid for Saddam to do this, those ships are sitting ducks out there, does he not think were watching this stuff.
10 posted on 02/19/2003 8:24:23 PM PST by Husker24
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blam
The Navy commander who is directed to inspect the cargos aboard these ships should be given clandestine orders to inform the renegade captains and crews that they will be summarily executed if any cargo is dumped or the ships scuttled. They could also be offered immunity and protection (or even rewards) for cooperating with the inspectors.

If they refuse this offer, it could only mean they ARE INDEED carrying chemical, biological or nuclear weapons material so,
way out there in the middle of the Indian ocean, a sudden nuclear attack could be employed to more-or-less destroy the weapon material on board. It would no doubt release some of the material, but destroy most. A fair deal.

11 posted on 02/19/2003 8:24:52 PM PST by GhostofWCooper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I think the real concern is the crews might scuttle the ships. If there is something really bad on board, sinking them could cause an unparalleled disaster.
12 posted on 02/19/2003 8:25:30 PM PST by punster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
What is so difficult about stopping, boarding, and thoroughly searching these ships.

What's so difficult about having them just disappear entirely.

Rogue wave, don't you know?

13 posted on 02/19/2003 8:36:27 PM PST by E. Pluribus Unum
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: blam
Sorta fishy. Three ships wandering around and recently
a French aircraft carrier dispatch and recalled. Any connection?
14 posted on 02/19/2003 8:40:46 PM PST by duckln
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Higgymonster
My recollection is that Myers just gave a curt "that report can not be confirmed", and when asked the same question again in differents words, gave the same curt answer, eyes darting slightly nervously.

In other words, I think he gave the moral equivalent of "no comment."

Then Rummy stepped in with an aggressive selection of a different question, from a different reporter.

15 posted on 02/19/2003 8:46:03 PM PST by ThePythonicCow (Mooo !!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: duckln
Any connection?

Sure! Another case of French surrender.

For sale, one aircraft carrier in fair condition. Hardly used, with road miles. One owner, good papers and instruction manual.

16 posted on 02/19/2003 8:47:29 PM PST by Cold Heat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: duckln
I'm sure the french carrier is travelling in the opposite direction of any ships suspicious ships
17 posted on 02/19/2003 8:48:15 PM PST by way-right-of-center (it's easy to hide when no one is looking)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: ThePythonicCow
"In other words, I think he gave the moral equivalent of "no comment." "

Yup. They know which one of the boys on those ships didn't shave on any given day.

18 posted on 02/19/2003 8:53:21 PM PST by blam
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Arkinsaw
I heard today that they think the crew may be under orders to sink the ships if they are going to be boarded...and that an environmental disaster is likely to follow. Hence the caution.

Hussein, obviously, thinks NOTHING of ruining the environment, since his own brain is so completely polluted with evil.

Every time I think of it, I get madder and madder at those idiots who are protesting OUR actions.
19 posted on 02/19/2003 8:58:54 PM PST by ChemistCat (We should have had newer, safer, better, more efficient ships by now, damn it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: lexington minuteman 1775; punster; ChemistCat
Can you all source any legitimate authority, not some eco freak pal, who can explain in detail exactly how scuttling these ships would cause an "ecological disaster"?

I guess a teaspoon of oil dropped in a swimming pool would be considered an "ecological disaster" in this day and time.

Beware of falling prey to the propaganda disseminated by uninformed, illegitimate sources.

20 posted on 02/19/2003 10:28:17 PM PST by VMI70
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-28 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson