For all of us this has been a powerful and illuminating three draining days of testimony by the Panel of Advocates. I think we are especially thankful to our sisters and brothers from Iraq who took special risks to help us understand the terrible reality of the Iraq war and its oppressive occupation. I want also to take this opportunity to acknowledge the extraordinary work of Ayse Berktay and Muge Sokmen, who made a great effort over the past two years that turned the dream of such a Tribunal into the valid reality we have experienced. They, together with many others, overcame obstacles of all kinds that would have defeated most of us; please join me in expressing our thanks to these two fine Turkish women and their many devoted colleagues.

         As we come to the end, we now look to our Jury of Conscience to tell us and the world how to view The Iraq war. For those of us who have listened to the deep questions raised by the Jurors, we have great confidence that the outcome of your deliberations will bring to a climax the vision and dedication of the WTI experience.   

      I intend these few remarks to be of some modest help to the jury. They reflect my views and some consultations with other members of the panel of advocates especially those with a background in international law.  

     Of particular importance are two preliminary issues; first whether to treat the occupation of Iraq as distinct from or part of The Iraq War. If separate from it clearly engages the Fourth Geneva Convention; if continuous with the Iraq War then it reminds us that the combat phases of the war never ended, as George W. Bush pretended way back on May 30, 2003, when he stood an American aircraft carrier in an appearance staged for TV with the infamous banner bearing the words “Mission Accomplished” visible as he spoke.   

The second preliminary remark has to do with the identity of this tribunal. It is not a formal court of law in the normal sense. At the same time, it is not a mere gathering of persons opposed to the Iraq War that is devoid of legal significance. Indeed it is a tribunal that endeavours to do what no court and no agency of the UN has done: To tell the truth about the Iraq War as clearly and unconditionally as possible, and to draw from this truth the legal consequences, including the personal and collective accountability of political and military leaders, of international civil servants and governments, of corporate officers, of soldiers in the field and businessmen who came to a devastated Iraq to make a dirty profit, of journalists who helped orchestrate the war.  In essence, this tribunal should neither adopt a legalistic voice that mimics the style of a national court, nor should it be shy about its authority to declare the law, and attach legal, moral and political consequences that should be enforced by the foot soldiers of civil society. At the same time it should repudiate what one advocate called “empire’s law”. It is this democratic force of law that gives weight to the articulated  calls we have heard these past two days; to form a tribunal similar to this one on Iraq and in the United States, places where the pain and need is the greatest; to organize an American boycott throughout the would on American products- that is, for us an America ‘to buy foreign’ whenever possible, for those elsewhere to avoid American exports, to mount a campaign throughout the world around the slogan “US out of Iraq”.

In approaching international law I would like to offer several comments:

- While not mimicking regular courts that serve the state and are the province of lawyers, yet to show an awareness of the fundamental legal norms and express as strongly as possible the moral, political and legal obligation to respect these norms, especially with respect to matters of war and peace;

- And to set forth the Nuremberg Obligation that those who violate these norms are personally and criminally accountable, and should be indicted, prosecuted, and judged by a court with powers of direct enforcement;

- In fixing personal accountability there should be lines drawn that distinguish degrees of responsibility based on levels of authority and clarity of criminal intent: I would suggest an inner circle of accountability to highlight the primary responsibility of Bush and Blair, and possibly their main partners in crime, including Rumsfeld, Cheney, Tommy Franks, Paul Wolfowitz , Alberto Gonzalez;

-  I would suggest a secondary level of accountability for officials and bureaucrats, for governments that supported the Iraq War either militarily or diplomatically, and for those of the corporate and financial world that pushed hard for a war that would bring their shareholders a windfall of profits;

-  I would suggest a third level of legal accountability for policy planners who helped fabricate the lies and arguments that produced the wars, the brain trust, so to speak of American Imperialism - inside and outside of government; and for journalists who wilfully helped the US/ UK with the lies that led to the war or who are deliberately avoiding the awful and tragic truths about the occupation and the true character of Iraqi national resistance;

- Beyond this legal accountability, are degrees of moral and political accountability; journalists; bureaucrats and soldiers who went along with criminal policies of the Iraq War.

Also, the jury is challenged to place this indictment of criminality and accountability in its larger geopolitical and historical setting. In this respect, the challenge is to find the time and substance to express the American project to establish a global empire by mixing the ideology of neo liberalism with the weaponry of the Pentagon. It is also essential to link this imperial reality with a responsibility to resist and to stand in solidarity with those most severely victimized at the present historical moment - such as the Iraqi and Palestinian people.

  We are confident that the jury will give the world a document that is at once persuasive, inspiring and above all mobilizing; that is will draw unmistakable  red lines that identify zones of criminal conduct, that it will offer political guidance and facilitate moral clarity. In effect, that despite not being a court of law in the familiar sense, that the judgement of this tribunal will help restore the authority of international law and truth telling. We all need to remember and celebrate the central reality; this tribunal –the WTI- was convened not to discover the truth about Iraq War, but to confirm the reality of its criminal nature; that this tribunal was not convened to debate whether “preventive war” was legal or not, but to repudiate the disgraceful efforts of the US / UK to rewrite “international law” so to as to legalize torture aggressive war. We all need to remember that this tribunal was not formed to celebrate the UN, but rather or express our grave disappointment that this organization, supposedly of the people of the world did not lift a finger to protect the brave people against a war of aggression, nor to express support for the Iraqi resistance undertaken in furtherance of every people to exercise their sacred right of self determination.

  In closing let me express our fervent wishes for an outcome from the jury that does justice to the truth telling excellence of the presentation by our panel of advocates.