Previous page | Contents | Next page
6.2  |  Military planning for the invasion, January to March 2003
750.  Lord Goldsmith said that in relation to the “three ‘dramatic’ targets”, Mr Hoon would
need to be satisfied that there was “sufficient evidence to justify the conclusion that they
actively participate in military command and control”. It was not enough “to assess that
a person is likely, if certain circumstances occur, to take over military command and
control”. Article 51(3) AP1 did not allow for the pre-emptive targeting of civilians.
751.  Second, having established that an individual was a legitimate target, Mr Hoon
should consider “the question of proportionality”.
752.  The proportionality assessment would need to be considered at the time an attack
was authorised, based on the place where the person was suspected to be and having
regard to IHL.
753.  Lord Goldsmith had “no doubt” that AM Burridge would consider carefully whether
any proposed attack was proportionate:
“But given the sensitivity of targeting individuals and the distinct possibility that an
attack may not succeed (either because the intelligence was wrong or because
the individual moved on before the strike took place), my advice is that you should
consider carefully the possibility of giving guidance to the commander on how he
is to assess proportionality in relation to these targets. You should bear in mind in
this context the delegation proposed in your letter would give Air Marshal Burridge
authority to authorise an attack on any of the three key individuals which would
cause unlimited civilian casualties, no matter where the individual was located. So,
for example, an attack on such an individual could be authorised without reference
to Ministers if intelligence suggested he were in a school, hospital, mosque or
densely populated residential area of Baghdad.”
754.  Lord Goldsmith advised that there were a number of points to consider in deciding
what guidance Mr Hoon might give, including:
What was “the concrete military advantage of killing each particular individual?”
If Mr Hoon was prepared to contemplate the delegation of authority with a high
estimate of casualties, was it feasible to place an upper limit on the casualties
which might be caused by an attack?
Since the extent of the military advantage was likely to change as the campaign
progressed, it would be important to keep the delegation under constant and
careful review.
755.  Following further exchanges with Lord Goldsmith, Mr Hoon replied on 7 April
confirming the delegations to AM Burridge and that they would be kept under
constant review.
507
Previous page | Contents | Next page