Niger To Sue US For Bush's "16 Word WMD Claims" In 2003 State Of Union Address

NGOs to sue US over WMD claims
From correspondents in Niamey
January 14, 2007

SOME 30 non-governmental organisations in Niger said overnight they are going to sue the United States for nearly two billion dollars for "unfairly accusing" Niger of selling uranium to the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein.
"Our lawyers are about to file a lawsuit against the US calling for damages of about 1000 billion CFA francs ($2.42 billion dollars) for the harm suffered" by the country, Moustapha Kadi, president of the Collective of organisations in Niger defending the right to energy (CODDAE).

The lawsuit by the collective will be filed at either French or Belgian courts, Kadi added.

In January 2003, US President George W. Bush accused Saddam of having bought uranium from Niger to make weapons of mass destruction.

The Niger collective said in a statement that investigations by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), world media and US officials, all concluded that it was a "false accusation" against Niger.

That false information was used by Bush "to invade Iraq," said the collective's statement, which also called for support from Niger's President Mamadou Tandja, who back in 2003 said the US allegations were "harming Niger's image".

...................

more at:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21057247-1702,00.html

I bet their phones were ringing off the hook by calls from people seeking yellowcake. Phone bill costs alone were probably a pretty penny.

The Australian doesn't rate very highly for accuracy, does it? They got a few things wrong.

"In January 2003, US President George W. Bush accused Saddam of having bought uranium from Niger to make weapons of mass destruction."

Jan. 2003 SoU speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

(1) "Sought to acquire" does not mean "acquired". (If it did I'd have my PhD and tenure at some university.)

(2) The claim in *'s speech was asserted to be that of British intelligence, and I'm fairly sure that French and Belgian courts couldn't force Britain to testify concerning what intelligence was shared. If the British want to take issue with it, they might have a leg to stand on, but as it is *'s words attribute no responsibility for the accuracy of the claim to * (however much conversational implicature may tell us that he believed them to be true).

(3) The SoU doesn't mention Niger at all. "Niger" was supplied by two sources: Joe Wilson and the 10/02 NIE summary made public. The Nigeriens claim doesn't seem to involve the SoU address, whatever The Australian may say. Or the Nigeriens are either not very literate in English, or not very careful in their documentation.

(4) The NIE says "A foreign government service reported that as of early 2001, Niger planned to send several tons of ``pure uranium'' (probably yellowcake) to Iraq. As of early 2001, Niger and Iraq reportedly were still working out arrangements for this deal, which could be for up to 500 tons of yellowcake. We do not know the status of this arrangement." Even this seems hardly grounds for a judgment, containing as it does two hedges and ending with that they have no independent about what the actual state of affairs was. But we'll see what the NGOs *actually* say, and if either court finds they have standing to act on behalf of their government.