November 29, 2007
The press, the military and the truth-be-damneders
Before
you decide to fully commit to that tempting offer of a 14-day luxurious
vacation in the oasis of the Middle East, Iraq -- complete with John
McCain as Hawaiian-shirted tour guide -- you may wish to consider the
following, yet another of those pesky truths that counteract the
fervent hosannahs offered by the American destiny-ists who jubiliantly
mouth that pacification has swept through Iraq but determinedly keep
their own particular asses safe here in the U.S.
WASHINGTON, Nov 28 (Reuters) -
Nearly 90 percent of U.S. journalists in Iraq say much of Baghdad is
still too dangerous to visit, despite a recent drop in violence
attributed to the build-up of U.S. forces, a poll released on Wednesday
said.
The survey by the Washington-based Pew Research Center
showed that many U.S. journalists believe coverage has painted too rosy
a picture of the conflict.
A separate Pew poll released on Tuesday showed that 48
percent of Americans believe the U.S. military effort in Iraq is going
very or fairly well, up from 34 percent in June, amid signs of
declining Iraqi civilian casualties and progress against Islamist
militants such as al Qaeda in Iraq.
But most journalists said they believe violence and the threat of violence have increased during their tenures.
Much of the danger for journalists is faced by local
Iraqis, who often do most of the reporting outside Baghdad's heavily
fortified Green Zone, the data showed...
..."Above all, the journalists -- most of them veteran war
correspondents -- describe conditions in Iraq as the most perilous they
have ever encountered, and this above everything else is influencing
the reporting," the authors said in a report that accompanied the
data...
Go here for the complete article.
AND
Okay, repeat after me: Pointing out any heavy-handedness, loopy
fabrications, the killing of innocents and the fabulist outright
propaganda is not in any way connected to the topic of supporting or
not supporting troops. Those who cannot tolerate rational discussion
love to resort to such an ipso facto proclamation, an indication of the
flimsiness of their arguments and, usually more telling, their fragile
egos. Do read this entire following article, another press-related one.
Iraq Has Only Militants, No Civilians
"Tactical Perception Management" in Iraq
Dahr Jamail
"Sometimes I think it should be a rule of war that you have
to see somebody up close and get to know him before you can shoot him."
-- Colonel Potter, M*A*S*H
Name them. Maim them. Kill them.
From the beginning of the American occupation in Iraq, air
strikes and attacks by the U.S. military have only killed "militants,"
"criminals," "suspected insurgents," "IED [Improvised Explosive Device]
emplacers," "anti-American fighters," "terrorists," "military age
males," "armed men," "extremists," or "al-Qaeda."
The pattern for reporting on such attacks has remained the
same from the early years of the occupation to today. Take a helicopter
attack on October 23rd of this year near the village of Djila, north of
Samarra. The U.S. military claimed it had killed 11 among "a group of
men planting a roadside bomb." Only later did a military spokesperson
acknowledge that at least six of the dead were civilians. Local
residents claimed that those killed were farmers, that there were
children among them, and that the number of dead was greater than 11.
Here is part of the statement released by U.S. military spokeswoman in northern Iraq, Major Peggy Kageleiry:
"A suspected insurgent and improvised explosive device
cell member was identified among the killed in an engagement between
Coalition Forces and suspected IED emplacers just north of Samarra....
During the engagement, insurgents used a nearby house as a safe haven
to re-engage coalition aircraft. A known member of an IED cell was
among the 11 killed during the multiple engagements. We send
condolences to the families of those victims and we regret any loss of
life."
As usual, the version offered by locals was vastly
different. Abdul al-Rahman Iyadeh, a relative of some of the victims,
revealed that the "group of men" attacked were actually three farmers
who had left their homes at 4:30 A.M. to irrigate their fields. Two
were killed in the initial helicopter attack and the survivor ran back
to his home where other residents gathered. The second air strike, he
claimed, destroyed the house killing 14 people. Another witness told
reporters that four separate houses were hit by the helicopter. A local
Iraqi policeman, Captain Abdullah al-Isawi, put the death toll at 16 --
seven men, six women, and three children, with another 14 wounded.
As often happens, the U.S. military, once challenged, declared that an "investigation" of the incident was under way.
Go here for the complete article.
AND
Yep, you can always count on the military higherups for honor and
fairness. Heck, if he could, Pat Tillman would gladly do a promo
pointing out the sparkling clarity surrounding his particular death and
the multiple versions of it that resulted.
Railroading A Journalist In Iraq
Tom Curley
The Washington Post
November 24, 2007; A17
At long last, prize-winning Associated Press photographer
Bilal Hussein may get his day in court. The trouble is, justice won't
be blind in this case -- his lawyer will be.
Bilal has been imprisoned by the U.S. military in Iraq
since he was picked up April 12, 2006, in Ramadi, a violent town in a
turbulent province where few Western journalists dared go. The military
claimed then that he had suspicious links to insurgents. This week,
Editor & Publisher magazine reported the military has amended that
to say he is, in fact, a "terrorist" who had "infiltrated the AP."
We believe Bilal's crime was taking photographs the U.S.
government did not want its citizens to see. That he was part of a team
of AP photographers who had just won a Pulitzer Prize for work in Iraq
may have made Bilal even more of a marked man.
In the 19 months since he was picked up, Bilal has not been
charged with any crime, although the military has sent out a flurry of
ever-changing claims. Every claim we've checked out has proved to be
false, overblown or microscopic in significance. Now, suddenly, the
military plans to seek a criminal case against Bilal in the Iraqi court
system in just days. But the military won't tell us what the charges
are, what evidence it will be submitting or even when the hearing will
be held.
Go here for the complete article.
PLUS
AP Lawyers Will Go to Iraq Next Week to Defend Photographer -- Press Group Raises Concerns
Joe Strupp
November 21, 2007
NEW YORK Associated Press Executive Editor Kathleen Carroll
believes AP photographer Bilal Hussein, who finally may be charged with
unspecified alleged terrorist crimes in Iraq, can get a fair trial
there.
But she stressed that the U.S. military's failure to
provide AP with specific information or evidence related to charges may
well hamper efforts to mount a defense and ultimately free Hussein,
whom AP contends is innocent.
"I have no reason to think the Iraqi court system will be
anything but fair and impartial," Carroll told E&P a day after AP
revealed charges had been brought. "But they can only be impartial
about what is presented to them. If one side has evidence and the other
side doesn't know what it is, how can we defend Bilal? They have told
our lawyers they will find out specifics when the complaint is filed
next week."
Carroll's comments come a day after Hussein, 36, who has
been held by U.S. and Iraqi military officials in Baghdad since April
2006, received word that the U.S. military planned to seek a criminal
complaint against him. An AFP report late Monday stated the complaint
accused Hussein of being "a terrorist media operative" who had
"infiltrated the AP."
Dave Tomlin, AP associate general counsel, said such
language is not new, noting the military had used such vague phrasing
for months to describe Hussein, but without substantial evidence or
specific incidents that have not been refuted...
...Tomlin said the military has raised examples of alleged criminal or
terrorist behavior by Hussein since he was first imprisoned, but each
has been refuted. One example, Tomlin recounted, was that Hussein
allegedly was involved in the kidnapping of two Arab journalists in
Ramadi. Tomlin said AP investigated and found that Hussein had actually
helped the two after they were released and contacted a friend who knew
Hussein.
In another incident, claims surfaced that Hussein had been photographed
with bomb-making equipment. Tomlin says an AP review found Hussein had
been allegedly taken from his apartment and brought to a shop where the
equipment was stored and forced to stand for a photo...
Go here for the complete article.
For those who cowardly soil the American flag by wrapping themselves in
it, thus trampling truth, liberty and justice -- the foundations for
human moral existence -- I ask: what would your reaction be if you were
asked to go to Iraq now as part of the military? What would your
reaction be if you were Pat Tillman's relatives? What would your
reaction be if members of your family were killed as a result of a
faulty military action? What would your reaction be if any of your kin
were simply locked up for months upon months based on faulty
justifications and denied due process?
RSS feed
|