Nick Wrack, a member of Respect’s National Council and occasional contributor of articles to this site, is in Baghdad at the moment. Below is his account of yesterday’s explosion at his hotel, one of a series in the city which killed around 100 people. It’s taken from Channel 4 News. Fortunately Nick was unhurt.

Barrister Nick Wrack was in Baghdad on behalf of Danny Fitzsimons, the British security worker arrested for the murder of two co-workers, when a blast ripped through his hotel.

I knew Iraq would be dangerous but I didn’t expect to be so close to a bomb blast.

This morning I was sitting with my colleague John Tipple in the lobby of the Al-Rasheed hotel inside the green zone in Baghdad.

We came out here on Sunday via Dubai, arriving at Baghdad airport on Monday morning, to represent Danny Fitzsimons, the British private security worker who has been arrested for the murder of two of his co-workers.

Our aim is to get Danny brought back to the UK. He could face the death penalty if convicted and we do not believe he will receive a fair trial in Iraq.

As we sat talking in the large East German-built hotel lobby the panels of the huge plate glass windows were blown out by a loud blast.

We both realised straight away that this was a bomb attack and dived under the table that separated us, as we had been told to do by the security personnel who have looked after us since our arrival.

As others dived for cover everything went quiet. But pretty quickly everyone was back on their feet, walking quickly out of the lobby or standing behind the thick hall pillars.

People seemed to take the blast in their stride. I suppose they’re used to these things although the hotel hasn’t been hit by a bomb since 2003 when the invasion took place.

There have been other incidents nearby. Last year, for example, a truck bomb went off in the street outside the hotel and several people were killed.

There were a lot of people at the hotel today and the blast might have had terrible consequences had the hit been more direct. Today, no one at the hotel was killed but two hotel workers who were in the nearby staff accommodation have been taken to hospital.

The blast was from the bomb targeted at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, just 200 metres away from the hotel.

John and I went to get our cameras to take photographs. John’s room had been damaged by the blast. His windows had been blown open, although not shattered, and the impact had blown the wooden door frame off.

The surfaces were covered with dust from the damage. John was lucky not to have been inside at the time.

Outside we could see plumes of smoke from other bombs and lots of ambulances moving slowly in the streets below. Windows on all sides of the hotel have been put out by the blast.

The hotel was hosting a conference at the time of the bomb blast. Delegates were being hurried out of the hotel by armed escorts.

We spoke to two Italian soldiers from the Italian embassy who came up to collect their client. They said that things had been much quieter recently but this was a big attack.

Interestingly, the first uniformed presence we saw after the blast was a troop of USA army soldiers who came to check out the damage.

The bomb attacks have confirmed our belief that Iraq is far too unstable and dangerous, compounding the difficulties that Danny would experience if he were tried here. We are now even more determined to get Danny home.

9 responses to “Nick's close shave”

  1. Nick Wrack represents a mercenary. Is he short of work or what?

    Like

  2. Are you saying that the man should be denied representation?

    Like

  3. No but I’m not clear why its a priority for a nominal socialist/anti war etc to represent one of the private occupying army, in the job for blood and money.

    Like

  4. Bill – when I had to get my boiler repaired I didn’t investigate what the engineer’s political views were. It was more important to get someone competent. The same rule would apply if I needed a barrister after going berserk and shooting someone.

    Lawyers have to spend a lot of time with criminals of all sorts. If we accept that one of the good things about bourgeois law is that you are given a chance to put your case to a court and that this is a right worth defending then I think we also have to concede that people involved in that trade will have to act on behalf of individuals who are utterly revolting. Not every day at work is a grand ideological statement.

    Also it’s an unhelpful and impractical suggestion to propose that lefty lawyers can only represent noble causes. There are not that many of those cases to go round at the moment.

    Like

  5. Sure enough the defendent may think its a good idea based on his legal reputation etc. to get Nick Wrack as a barrister. I have no idea if that’s the case or not.
    But the lawyer, i.e. Nick Wrack, on the other hand has a choice over which cases they decide to represent.
    Plumbers do not take on every random individual who asks their help. In my experience they’re a fairly picky lot.
    Nick Wrack decides to represent a mercenary i.e. a private soldier or in other words killer for hire or “British security worker” as he coyly puts it. Someone who is a key weapon in consolidating the occupation, slaughter, oppression, etc. of the Iraqi people.
    He doesn’t have to do that. In my opinion it is a wrong thing for a nominally socialist/anti-imperialist etc. so called lefty to do. But like they say, never trust anyone in a suit.

    Like

  6. Just as I’m assuming it would have been frounded upon if Nick Wrack had decided to defend the police in the John Charles de Menezes case.
    On the other hand, if he needs the work….

    Like

  7. You know, in some circumstances military personnel who have been damaged by involvement in all sorts of imperialist conflicts, have been known to do a range of sometimes brutal things that are considered disfunctional from the point of view of their employers. From getting into a drunken stupor and shooting dead some of their colleagues, all the way to the much more political act of killing their officers with fragmentation grenades as in the Vietnam war. Sometimes, by the way, when you are dealing with people with mixed consciousness in a messy situation with much brutality, brutalisation and mental trauma on all sides, it may not be entirely clear to outsiders which situation is which. Hell, in some cases it might not be entirely clear to those involved which is which.

    I have no experience of military service. On the other hand, from certain other contexts, I do have some experience of post-traumatic stress disorder, and I have to say that Bill J’s position in this regard, is not only callous, but completely stupid. It denies the right of this guy to a legal defence based on … what? … the moralism of people who for all their ‘revolutionary purity’ have a complete abstract, academic notion of social contradiction and what in real life can tear people out of these kinds of roles and possibly radicalise them. Being victimised by your ‘own’ side can be a powerful disillusioning experience, and yes, why should not a socialist lawyer defend such a person?

    Only a dead-head dilletante could fail to see the usefullness of that. It gives us the kudos of being the defenders of the ordinary soldier against the abuses of the bosses, which given the partial privatisation of war among many other things in the capitalism/imperialism we concretely confront today, may include situations like this.

    And what a stupid comparsion, with the Jean Charles de Menezes case! If the man assigned to kill J-C had instead run amok due to some mental condition and shot a bunch of his fellow cops, that might be a better analogy. Though even this doesn’t capture the gulf between Iraq and the streets of London! Anyone who compares the two like this again has no idea of social reality, in Baghdad or London!

    Like

  8. I believe that barristers operate according to the “cab-rank” principle – that they have to take case assigned to them unless they can demonstrate a clear conflict of interest, and represent their client as zealously as they can.

    If lawyers are allowed to refuse to represent clients disapproved of in some quarters, it will be those most vilified by the state and media that would be the first to suffer, and who are in most need of help [al-Megrahi comes to mind, or the Birmingham Six,or maybe your average alleged serial killer].

    I think that the basis on which he and his colleagues are trying to get proceedings shifted to Britain may be bogus, but as the man’s lawyer he is rightfully doing the best for him.

    Like

Leave a reply to ID Cancel reply

Trending