4.3 |
Iraq WMD assessments, October 2002 to March 2003
given in
the intelligence. But despite the later behaviour of our source, we
have no
reason yet
to dismiss this material. There has been collateral for some of it
[from
other
reporting issued on 30 March 2003].”
525.
Because source
protection was no longer as sensitive, the documents would
be
reissued
“with additional comment and to a wider readership”.
526.
A report was
issued on 3 April 2003 which was described as “a lightly
edited
composite
of two reports” previously issued in September 2002. The
source
was
described as: “A new source (with whom contact has now ceased)
quoting
527.
The 3 April
report merged much of the reporting in the reports of 11 and
23
September
2002 and added new comments from SIS. The significant changes
were:
•
A statement
that “capability outstripped personnel able to operate it” was
moved
to the
Summary of the report. That gave it additional prominence in
comparison
with the
original report of 11 September.
•
SIS added a
comment that this was consistent with a later report from
March
2003 about
the problems caused by the dispersal of technical experts
previously
involved in
the production of CW.
•
Details of
spherical glass containers filled with CW agents at the
named
establishment,
which had constituted part of the main body of the second
report,
were
identified as a “source comment” in the 3 April
report.
•
Additional
details were provided substantiating the authenticity of
the sub-
source’s
existence. His previous involvement in CW activities was
also
emphasised.
•
SIS
acknowledged that it would not be possible “to verify fully” the
details in
the report
until it had succeeded in gaining direct access to the
sub-source,
but it had
“no reason to dismiss the bulk of this material, for which
there
has been
collateral”.
•
However, it
drew attention to the fact that the source’s description of the
device
and its
spherical glass contents was “remarkably similar to the fictional
chemical
weapon
portrayed in the film The
Rock”. It
acknowledged that the similarity
had been
pointed out by one recipient when the report of 23 September
was
circulated.
That significantly changed the context in which the details
were
subsequently
presented in the reissued report.
•
There is no
evidence that that point was made to the original readers of
the
reports
before they were reissued on 3 April.
196
Report SIS,
3 April 2003, ‘WMD/Iraq: Production of Chemical and Biological
substances in Iraq
in 2002’.
383