Chapter 4 - The Iraq Survey Group and its ability to report frankly and fearlessly
This chapter addresses the second half of the terms of
reference which is concerned with the work of the ISG. The committee examines
whether the ISG was able to report frankly and fearlessly on what it had found,
or whether attempts were made to censor or otherwise distort its findings. It
also seeks to ascertain whether any Australian personnel provided information
or concerns to the Australian government relating to concerns about the work of
the ISG and, if so, what actions followed.
The ISG reports
Kay was the first Special Advisor to the ISG,
serving in Iraq
from June 2003 until 7 December 2003.
Under his direction, ISG began a systematic survey and examination of the
existence and location of WMD capabilities. He provided an interim progress
report to the Director of Central Intelligence in September 2003 on the early
findings of the investigation. Under his leadership, ISG interviewed many key
participants in the WMD programs, undertook site visits, and began the review
of captured documents.
Duelfer replaced Dr
Kay and took up his position as Special
Advisor in Iraq
on 12 February 2004. The
ISG produced an interim report in March 2004. On 30 March 2004, Mr Duelfer
told Congress that after Dr Kay
left, the ISG 'continued to follow its previous strategy, but the effort
shifted towards fewer site visits, more debriefings, and greater use of
document sorting and review'. He concluded that 'there is more work to be done
to gather critical information about the regime, its intentions, and its
capabilities, and to assess that information for its meaning. The ISG produced a 'comprehensive'
report in September 2004.
The intelligence services of three nations—the UK,
the US and Australia—supported
the ISG. They include the SIS and the Defense Intelligence Service in the United
Kingdom; both the Defense Intelligence
Agency and Central Intelligence Agency in the United
States, and some highly skilled intelligence
analysts provided by Australia.
The September 2004 report of the ISG states that while these institutions
expressed interest in the findings of the ISG and certainly were curious where
their pre–war assessments went wrong, they did not try to steer in any way the
judgments included in the report.
supported the view that the September report of the ISG was an objective report
free from the influence of external forces. He stated that the substantive
report of the ISG presented to congress last October was 'a frank and honest report'.
To his knowledge there was no attempt by any government to censor or in any
other way interfere with the conclusions of the report.
He believed, however, that this was not the case with
the March interim report that he was involved with. He was in no doubt that political
influences from London and Washington
were exerted to try to change what the ISG was saying in this report. He noted, however, that the
Australian government did not seek to influence the ISG in drafting its report.
Mr Barton explained that the external pressure being
applied on the team was to prepare a report that did not honestly reflect the
evidence they had gathered—that matters were not to be included in the report
because they were 'too politically difficult'. He told the Committee:
I was responsible for the coordination and oversight of the
March report. It was circulated to capitals for comment, and I received
feedback from Washington, London
and Canberra. The comments from Canberra
were constructive and largely editorial and caused me no difficulty. London,
however, suggested that we add certain material. I believe these additions were
designed to leave the impression that WMD might yet be found. This would have
been contrary to our views. The CIA also sent suggested amendments. Many of
these were quite useful, but there were two amendments that were blatant
attempts to change our findings.
To the credit of Charles
Duelfer, the head of the ISG, these attempts
at changing the nature of the report were rejected. Nevertheless, it was still
a poor report in that it did not say what by this time we knew... In my view the
report was symptomatic of a wider malaise in the ISG. At that time there was no
real objectivity in the investigation and it seemed to me that a lot of the
direction, particularly in the chemical and biological areas, was coming from Washington.
explained that his resignation letter outlined some of this information. He
stated that 'Again, I should make it clear that I was not the only person to
resign. Another senior Australian resigned shortly before me, for similar
reasons, as did one senior investigator from the UK'.
He detailed some of the aspects of the interim report
that worried him:
The mobile laboratories were something that we, the ISG,
investigated very thoroughly throughout 2003. By the end of that year and
certainly by early 2004, we had come to fairly firm conclusions on exactly what
those trailers were. We call them trailers. There were two of them that we had
in our camp, actually—at Camp Slayer.
The evidence of all of the experts who went through those trailers was that
those trailers were nothing to do with biology. In actual fact, they were
hydrogen generators. That was an issue that I was told by a senior CIA official
we could not discuss. In fact, that senior person—and I am not talking about
Charles Duelfer; I am talking about his senior staff member—said that it did
not matter what they were or what they were for, he did not want to know and we
could not write about that. It was too politically difficult, he told me. I
said: 'How can we refer to these in the report? We need to make a reference. We
have done all of this work and we have quite a thorough document on these
trailers—as to what they are and what their purpose is'. He said, 'I don't
care—that can't go in the report'. I spoke to Charles
Duelfer afterwards and he said, 'I'm not
interested in that'. Therefore, in the report we put out in March, there was no
reference to our findings about those trailers. I actually put it to Charles:
'There are still members in your government—not in mine anymore, but in
yours—who are referring to those trailers as biological trailers. We know they are
not and we are not telling them.’ He said, 'I'm not interested in that. We're
not putting that in the report'. And it did not go in.
He explained further:
That was one of the concerns. It was the whole process, not just
the report...There were other issues that we already knew about—things that
debunked some of the other stuff that we knew about—that had been raised in Powell's
presentation to the United Nations Security
Council the February before...
When I asked Charles
Duelfer about this, his argument—and I take
on a little bit of this—was 'I have been here too short a period of time. You
are trying to make me come to firm conclusions about things when I have only
been here a short while.’ We argued a lot about that. But I said to him, 'Look,
by the time you report to congress, you will have been around for six or seven weeks,
first of all. Secondly, you didn’t come here cold. You were the deputy
executive chairman from UNSCOM. You have been a researcher, an academic,
looking at all these issues. You were briefed in Washington
before you came and we have briefed you now. So you are not starting off cold.
I know it will be difficult'. I felt that we should still say these things. To
hide information that we knew about, I thought, was very wrong.
told the committee that he had reported his concerns about the ISG to
government authorities on his return to Australia
in March 2004. As noted previously, Mr Pezzullo
had consulted an Air Force Group Captain who had been present at the meeting
The meeting was focused on the work he had undertaken with the ISG,
his reasons for leaving early and his recommendations for the provision of
further support to the ISG, all of which were outlined in his letter of
resignation to the first assistant secretary.
His letter of resignation in particular cited the
influence being exerted by the CIA on the content and shape of the report. Mr
Barton wrote that 'The Agency's attitude was
there are weapons out there, we just have
to find them'. He went on to state in his letter of resignation:
The consequences of the new CIA approach had a dramatic effect
on the ISG and influence its daily work. There are many examples of this. At a
meeting I attended on 20 February, analysts were told that an edict from Washington
stated that 'the burden of proof had to
be higher' for assessments that contradict statements by Secretary
Powell in his speech to the UN a year
earlier. This caused re–investigation of issues that under other circumstances
would have been finalized. But the most profound effect was on the March
The Progress Report that I had been coordinating was put aside
and a new 25 page, 'Status Report' that contained no assessment, was put
forward by Charles Duelfer.
He said this approach was endorsed by the Agency although he claimed that he
was not pressured to take this line. The Status Report avoids assessment of,
and in some cases even mention of, controversial and negative issues, including
the so–called 'biological trailers', the aluminium tubes, the mobile biological
production program, chemical weapon storage depots and the small pox program.
The effect is therefore a biased report and the suppression of information in
the ISG's possession.
He also mentioned the resignation of two close colleagues—both
senior advisers to the head of the ISG—on similar grounds. One from the UK
who according to Mr Barton
was the most experienced and senior investigator and the other an Australian
who was doing a job similar to his. He had discussed this matter with them and
also saw their letters of resignation.
He told the Committee that their letters of
resignation were couched in similar terms to his:
I have seen both of their resignation letters, and of course I discussed
this with them. I know exactly why they resigned, and it was essentially for
the same reasons that I resigned. That is, they felt there was no objectivity
at that time in the ISG, not only in the way it was reporting but in the way it
was doing its investigation. As I mentioned, the direction seemed to be coming
and from the CIA.
He also understood that the Australian colleague who
resigned shortly before him, and who had written a similar letter of
resignation, had discussed this with various senior officials in both DFAT and
Defence in March last year. Moreover, the colleague, who had left Iraq
on 8 March 2004, had sent
him a series of emails detailing his experiences on arrival in Australia.
They record that he met Paul O'Sullivan
and spent about 20 minutes with Minister Downer. Mr
Barton stated that he was informed that Mr
Downer had seen the letter of resignation
and referred to it and some of the assessments it contained. According to Mr
Barton, on 10 March, his colleague also saw
the Secretary of Defence, Mr Ric
Smith and also Ms
Foster, the branch head responsible for the
also mentioned a meeting in Baghdad
with the Australian Representative, Neil Mules, and Mr Quinn,
where according to Mr Barton
they discussed his colleague's resignation and the letter of resignation. The identity of Mr
Barton's Australian colleague, Dr
John Gee, was
revealed publicly in media reports on 30 and 31 March 2005.
It appears that there may have been two meetings, one
on 26 February and a dinner party on 2
March 2004. According
to Mr Blazey,
Head Iraq Task Force, at the meeting on 26 February, Mr
Barton and Dr
Gee conveyed to Mr
Quinn their concerns about the direction of
the ISG relating to the forthcoming ISG's interim report. He understood the
main concerns centred on 'some methodological issues, the structure and
objectivity of the report'. He
also confirmed that resignations were discussed and that Dr
Gee presented Mr
Quinn with his letter of resignation which
was addressed to Mr Quinn. He believed that the Minister for
Foreign Affairs was provided with a copy of the letter.
When asked whether a report emanating from this meeting
was sent back to Australia,
stated his understanding that there was a report but the 'more substantive
record of those concerns was contained in a letter conveyed to Mr
Quinn by Dr
In turning to Dr
Gee's meeting with Mr
Blazey told the committee that it was not
appropriate for him to 'report on the content or otherwise of private conservations
of the foreign minister'. He was of the view that Mr
Quinn was also present at that meeting.
The committee wrote to Dr
Gee inviting him to make a written
submission and to appear before the Committee
to give evidence. He declined the invitation stating that he had not
participated in any interrogations, interviews or debriefs of Iraqi personnel
while in Iraq.
He stated further that he did not visit Camp Cropper, had not been aware of, or
made any reports of, instances of abuse of Iraqi detainees in Camp Cropper on
his return to Australia. He confirmed that he had resigned from the Iraqi
Survey Group in February 2004 and that he explained the reasons for this to the
government at the time. He was of the view that he could not usefully add any
further information to what was already on the public record about these
Furthermore, he felt that as a former public servant he
was obliged under the Code of Conduct to maintain appropriate confidentiality
about his dealings as an employee with any Minister or Minister's member of
staff. He quoted from the code that directs that '...except in the course of his
or her duties as a APS employee or with the Agency's express authority, not
give or disclose directly or indirectly, any information about public business
or anything of which the employee has official knowledge'. Dr
Gee concluded that:
...I note that Mr Downer
has already publicly described our conversation of 15 March as private and
declined to give any details of it: since he has characterised it thus, I do
not feel there is anything I can say about it.
He also noted that the Post Separation Employment
Guidelines attached to the Department of Defence's letter of release from his
contract indicated that he was bound by sub–Section 70(2) of the Crimes Act.
Recognising that a Senate standing committee possesses
the full range of inquiry powers, including the authority to compel evidence
and that any person giving evidence before such a committee is protected under
parliamentary privilege, the committee requested his attendance. It explained
to him that given his concerns about giving evidence, the committee noted that Mr
Director–General, Office of National Assessment, gave assurances that there
would be no repercussions for him or ONA if he were to appear before the
The committee advised Dr
Gee that Mr
Varghese's statement was in accordance with
section 12 of the Parliamentary
Privileges Act 1987 dealing with the protection of witnesses. It noted that
it is a breach of this section for any person to take adverse action against
another person because that person gives evidence before a parliamentary
The committee understands Dr
Gee's reluctance to give evidence in public
about his letter of resignation and conversations with the Minister and senior
officials. The committee, however, explained to Dr
Gee that, although it prefers all evidence
to be given in public, he could make a request to the Chair to give evidence in
camera and the committee would consider his request.
declined the committee's request for his attendance to give evidence re-stating
his view that there was little value he could add to the committee's
deliberations. He stated that much of what he could say had already been placed
on the public record or because there could be limits on what he 'could say
because of residual obligations to the Commonwealth arising from his engagement
by the Department of Defence'.
The committee wants to make clear that in respect of
giving evidence to it, Dr Gee
was not legally bound by, or liable to, the provisions to which he referred. Furthermore,
the committee does not accept his assumption that there was little of value he
could add to the committee's deliberations. This committee has the important and
difficult task of testing the veracity of evidence before it in order to arrive
at informed and well–considered findings. The committee is best placed to
determine the matters which it believes needs to be examined and it relies on
the good will and cooperation of witnesses to assist it in its inquiry. The
committee believes that Dr Gee's
failure to appear before the committee seriously frustrated attempts by the
committee to reconcile the information it had before it and severely hindered
the committee's obligation to report on its terms of reference.
One committee member noted, however, that it was Dr
Gee's prerogative to decline the committee's
request for him to appear and that the committee had the power to subpoena Dr
Gee, but it chose not to do so.
In addressing the terms of reference, the committee is
unable to find sufficiently strong evidence to suggest that the ISG was unable
to report frankly and fearlessly on what they had found. Mr
Barton's evidence indicates that there were
attempts to influence the ISG but there is no corroborating evidence.
From the evidence, it is clear that Mr
Barton and Dr
Gee discussed their concerns about the work
of the ISG with the Australian Representative and Mr
Quinn in Baghdad.
Evidence also shows that Mr Barton
raised concerns about the function of the ISG and its March report with
government officials on his return to Australia
in March 2004.
According to the evidence, it is likely that Dr
Gee may also have alerted officials to
similar concerns on his return a few weeks earlier. Dr
Gee would not appear before the committee to
confirm, deny or comment on Mr Barton's
claims and would not provide the committee with a copy of his letter of
resignation which allegedly referred to his dissatisfaction with the influence
being exerted on the ISG. Government officials similarly refused to comment on
Dr Gee's letter of resignation or on the meetings held between Dr Gee and the
Minister for Foreign Affairs and between Mr Gee and the Secretary of Defence
and other officials regarding his letter of resignation.
It is unclear how the Department of Defence or the Department
of Foreign Affairs responded to information provided to them suggesting that
influence was exerted on the ISG when preparing its March report. The silence
from both departments indicates that there was no follow–up.
SENATOR JOHN HOGG
Chairman for the Inquiry
Navigation: Previous Page | Contents | Next Page