29.4.06

Media Manipulation - Global Issues

Media Manipulation - Global Issues
By Anup Shah

This is crucial for the public to understand.
The general public has been regarded as just another puppet on a string, only being told what The US Government wants them to know. The difference is we have eyes, we can see whats going on, we have ears, we can hear whats going on, and we have intelligence of our own, that far surpasses United States Intelligence, who somehow believe we are blind deaf and dumb.
We are Not, and we have had enough.
I applaud Mr. Shah on his research and outstanding work on this integral issue to international society.

Media Manipulation

The media is manipulated in all manners, for example through professional public relations (PR), and covert and overt government propaganda which disseminates propaganda as news. What are often deemed as credible news sources can often knowingly or unknowingly be pushing political agendas and propaganda.

Table of contents for this page

This web page has the following sub-sections:

Media management and public relations is very professional

The impacts of public relations cannot be underestimated. In the commercial world, marketing and advertising are typically needed to make people aware of products. There are many issues in that area alone (which is looked at in this site’s section on corporate media.) When it comes to propaganda for purposes of war, for example, professional public relations firms can often be involved to help sell a war. In cases where a war is questionable, the PR firms are indirectly contributing to the eventual and therefore unavoidable casualties. Media management may also be used to promote certain political policies and ideologies. Where this is problematic for the citizenry is when media reports on various issues do not attribute their sources properly.

Some techniques used by governments and parties/people with hidden agendas include:

The Gulf War in Iraq, 1991, highlighted a lot of PR work in action. Founder of the Washington PR firm, The Rendon Group, John Rendon told cadets at the U.S. Air Force Academy in 1996:

“I am not a national security strategist or a military tactician,” Rendon said. “I am a politician, and a person who uses communication to meet public policy or corporate policy objectives. In fact, I am an information warrior and a perception manager.” He reminded the Air Force cadets that when victorious troops rolled into Kuwait City at the end of the first war in the Persian Gulf, they were greeted by hundreds of Kuwaitis waving small American flags. The scene, flashed around the world on television screens, sent the message that U.S. Marines were being welcomed in Kuwait as liberating heroes.

“Did you ever stop to wonder,” Rendon asked, “how the people of Kuwait City, after being held hostage for seven long and painful months, were able to get hand-held American, and for that matter, the flags of other coalition countries?” He paused for effect. “Well, you now know the answer. That was one of my jobs then.”

... Public relations firms often do their work behind the scenes....But his description of himself as a “perception manager” echoes the language of Pentagon planners, who define “perception management” as “actions to convey and (or) deny selected information and indicators to foreign audiences to influence their emotions, motives, and objective reasoning. ... In various ways, perception management combines truth projection, operations security, cover, and deception, and psyops [psychological operations].”

— Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, How To Sell a War, In These Times, 4 August, 2003

Such technical phrases like “truth projection” hide their true meanings and intent: propaganda. One can understand how these have been tactics of war. Churchill used such a technique to fool the Nazis regarding the Normandy landings, for example. Yet, in the Iraq example, PR is turned onto one’s own citizens to convince them to support a war or make it look more glorious and right, than could otherwise have been.

The 2003 war on Iraq saw similar amounts of public relations and media manipulation at work. A detailed account was given by Ahmed Chalabi who seemed to boast how he helped influence major politicians and countries into drumming the beats of war against Iraq. This is discussed in further detail on this site’s Iraq section.

Smear tactics are increasing in sophistication

Smear tactics are often used to discredit, stain or destroy the reputation of someone. It is unfortunatley common-place and is an age-old technique. It can either involve outright lies, or a distortion of the truth.

With the increasing popularity of the Internet, and search engines such as Google, smearing is taking on additional forms and techniques. Juan Cole, a professor of history has described what he has coined a “GoogleSmear” as a political tactic to discredit him. His personal experience is quoted here:

It seems to me that David Horowitz and some far rightwing friends of his have hit upon a new way of discrediting a political opponent, which is the GoogleSmear. It is an easy maneuver for someone like Horowitz, who has extremely wealthy backers, to set up a web magazine that has a high profile and is indexed in google news. Then he just commissions persons to write up lies about people like me (leavened with innuendo and out-of-context quotes). Anyone googling me will likely come upon the smear profiles, and they can be passed around to journalists and politicians as though they were actual information.

— Juan Cole, The GoogleSmear as Political Tactic, Informed Comment Blog, March 27, 2005

Fake News

March 2005 has seen some revelations in the mainstream about fake news whereby organizations and journalists working for public relations firms or a government department have produced news reports. The problem arises where these reports are either presented as factual news by journalists, or have been rebroadcast by news stations without revealing that the segment is from an organization or the government, thus giving it the appearance of genuine news.

David Miller, of Spin Watch, in the UK has noted in a commentary that there is a lot of fake news, and it has been going on for a long time:

This is the age of the fake. We live in an era where the gap between how the world is and how powerful interests try to portray it has grown dramatically wider. Virtually nothing in public debate these days is free of the virus of fakery....

Today distortions [such as the famous Stalinist airbrushing of Trotsky from photographs of the Russian revolutionary period] are much more easily contrived. The advent of the digital camera has made it easier, cheaper and quicker to take and distribute photographs — and to manipulate them. In the last couple of years there have been several examples of photos produced to artificially inflate the size of crowds listening to a speech by George Bush for example. An LA Times journalist was sacked in 2003 for manipulating a photograph of a British soldier in Basra.

The problem with fakes is that the images do not need to be false to mislead. The photos showed by Colin Powell in his presentation to the UN on Iraq were genuine. They just did not show the things that he said they did....

But it is not only photographs which are susceptible to fake treatment. While governments have a long and invidious record, the cutting edge of innovation is in the corporate sector, particularly in the PR industry. Monsanto and other GM interests have been to the forefront of creating fake demonstrations, fake scientific institutes, fake pressure groups with all the paraphernalia of fake leaflets, tee shirts, websites and the rest....

In recent years the fakes have become more sophisticated, so that the distinction between fake and real is less easy to discern.

— David Miller, The age of the fake, Spin Watch, March 14, 2005

Fake News in the United States

In March 2005, the New York Times revealed that there has been a large amount of fake and prepackaged news created by US government departments, such as the Pentagon, the State Department and others, and disseminated through the mainstream media. The New York Times noted a number of important issues including:

  • The US Bush administration has “aggressively” used public relations to prepackage news. Issues with this have included that:
    • A number of these government-made news segments are made to look like local news (either by the government department or by the receiving broadcaster);
    • Sometimes these reports have fake reporters such as when a “‘reporter’ covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration”;
    • Other times, there is no mention that a video segment is produced by the government;
    • Where there is some attribution, news stations simply rebroadcast them but sometimes without attributing the source.
  • These segments have reached millions;
  • This benefits both the government and the broadcaster;
  • This could amount to propaganda within the United States as well as internationally.

Effectively, American tax payers have paid to be subjected to propaganda disseminated through these massaged messaged.

Citing the New York Times at length:

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government’s role in their production.

... the administration’s efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations...

Some reports were produced to support the administration’s most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters... They often feature “interviews” with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.

Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation’s largest television markets... prepackaged segments [include] “suggested” lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of [news programming, feeds, web sites, etc.] only to emerge cleansed on the other side as “independent” journalism.

— David Barstow and Robin Stein, Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News, New York Times, March 13, 2005 [Emphasis Added]

(This all actually started with the Clinton administration, and has increased tremendously in breadth and scope with the Bush administration. “The Bush administration spent $254 million in its first term on public relations contracts, nearly double what the last Clinton administration spent,” the Time also notes.)

Government Propaganda through Prepackaged News

When some government officials were confronted about this problem by the Times a common response was that they didn’t believe it was propaganda or there was nothing wrong. When it was the case that the news stations didn’t source the segment correctly, this can be understood. But, when the segment itself has been used to pursue ideological or political agendas, then this response is more questionable. Furthermore, the Times also noted, that

the [US] Government Accountability Office, an investigative arm of Congress that studies the federal government and its expenditures, has held that government-made news segments may constitute improper “covert propaganda” even if their origin is made clear to the television stations.

— David Barstow and Robin Stein, Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News, New York Times, March 13, 2005 [Emphasis Added]

When some station news directors were confronted with this,

Their stations, they insisted, would never allow their news programs to be co-opted by segments fed from any outside party, let alone the government.

“They’re inherently one-sided, and they don’t offer the possibility for follow-up questions — or any questions at all,” said Kathy Lehmann Francis, until recently the news director at WDRB, the Fox affiliate in Louisville, Ky.

...

“It amounts to propaganda, doesn’t it?” [Mike Stutz, news director at KGTV, the ABC affiliate in San Diego] said.

...Confronted with evidence [that despite their statements, they had actually broadcast a number of government segments], most news directors were at a loss to explain how the segments made it on the air. Some said they were unable to find archive tapes that would help answer the question. Others promised to look into it, then stopped returning telephone messages. A few removed the segments from their Web sites, promised greater vigilance in the future or pleaded ignorance.

— David Barstow and Robin Stein, Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News, New York Times, March 13, 2005

In an example, to mark the one year anniversary of the September 11 2001 attacks on America, WHBQ, the Fox affiliate in Memphis had an uplifting report about Afghanistan and the improving situation for women. The report “seemed to corroborate, however modestly, a central argument of the Bush foreign policy, that forceful American intervention abroad was spreading freedom, improving lives and winning friends.”

Furthermore, what both the people of Memphis and the actual reporter from WHBQ herself were not told was that “interviews used by WHBQ were actually conducted by State Department contractors. The contractors also selected the quotes used from those interviews and shot the video that went with the narration. They also wrote the narration, much of which [the reporter] repeated with only minor changes.”

As another example, the Pentagon offers free satellite feeds. “The Pentagon Channel, available only inside the Defense Department last year, is now being offered to every cable and satellite operator in the United States.” A “good news” and positive image is being portrayed. “50 stories it filed last year were broadcast 236 times in all, reaching 41 million households in the United States.” Reporters, for example, are never identified by their military titles making it easier for local stations to run reports unedited. Few stations acknowledge the military’s role in the segments. Stories are also tailored for local broadcast by highlighting local soldiers to help increase positive feelings.

Much of this sort of thing, the Time noted comes straight from the White House:

The explanation [of the extent to which government-produced news accounts have seeped into the broader new media landscape] begins inside the White House, where the president’s communications advisers devised a strategy after Sept. 11, 2001, to encourage supportive news coverage of the fight against terrorism. The idea, they explained to reporters at the time, was to counter charges of American imperialism by generating accounts that emphasized American efforts to liberate and rebuild Afghanistan and Iraq.

— David Barstow and Robin Stein, Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News, New York Times, March 13, 2005

At the end of September 2005, as the New York Times reported, US Federal auditors said on Friday that the Bush administration violated the law by buying favorable news coverage of President Bush’s education policies, by making payments to the conservative commentator Armstrong Williams and by hiring a public relations company to analyze media perceptions of the Republican Party. This was the first definitive ruling on the legality of the activities.

In what the Times described as a “blistering report”, the Government Accountability Office confirmed their previous accusation, that the administration had indeed disseminated “covert propaganda” in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.

Illegal US Domestic Propaganda but Legal International Propaganda?

The above-mentioned strategy by the Bush administration to emphasize positive views of American efforts in Afghanistan and Iraq reveals some deeper issues hinted to, but not explored by the Times article:

United States law contains provisions intended to prevent the domestic dissemination of government propaganda. The 1948 Smith-Mundt Act, for example, allows Voice of America to broadcast pro-government news to foreign audiences, but not at home.

— David Barstow and Robin Stein, Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News, New York Times, March 13, 2005

While further above it was noted that domestic propaganda may be a problem here, so too is the admission that propaganda to foreign audiences is ok.

In the past the US has (rightly) criticized other governments for interfering with democratic processes in other countries (such as warning Russia about interfering in recent Ukraine elections.) Yet, the Voice of America is also disseminating US government views into other countries.

But it is not just Voice of America. USA Today revealed (December 14, 2005) that the Pentagon plans to place pro-American messages in foreign media outlets without disclosing the US government as the source as part of a $300 million psychological warfare operation. A fear raised now is that people may become more suspicious of the open press.

Widespread Use of Video News Releases By Corporations and Government Agencies

The Center for Media and Democracy published a report noting that pre-packaged Video News Release (VNR) use was widespread, often disguised as news from the broadcasting station:

The quality and integrity of television reporting … significantly impacts the public’s ability to evaluate everything from consumer products to medical services to government policies.

To reach this audience—and to add a veneer of credibility to clients’ messages—the public relations industry uses video news releases (VNRs). VNRs are pre-packaged “news” segments and additional footage created by broadcast PR firms, or by publicists within corporations or government agencies. VNRs are designed to be seamlessly integrated into newscasts, and are freely provided to TV stations. Although the accompanying information sent to TV stations identifies the clients behind the VNRs, nothing in the material for broadcast does. Without strong disclosure requirements and the attention and action of TV station personnel, viewers cannot know when the news segment they’re watching was bought and paid for by the very subjects of that “report.”

— Diane Farsetta and Daniel Price, Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed, A multimedia report on television newsrooms' use of material provided by PR firms on behalf of paying clients, Center for Media and Democracy, April 6, 2006

Key findings from their report were that:

  • VNR use is widespread;
  • VNRs are aired in TV markets of all sizes;
  • TV stations don’t disclose VNRs to viewers;
  • TV stations disguise VNRs as their own reporting;
  • TV stations don’t supplement VNR footage or verify VNR claims;
  • The vast majority of VNRs are produced for corporate clients;
  • Satellite media tours (interviews with the TV station made to look like a genuine interview) may accompany VNRs.

In sum, television newscasts—the most popular news source in the United States—frequently air VNRs without disclosure to viewers, without conducting their own reporting, and even without fact checking the claims made in the VNRs. VNRs are overwhelmingly produced for corporations, as part of larger public relations campaigns to sell products, burnish their image, or promote policies or actions beneficial to the corporation.

— Diane Farsetta and Daniel Price, Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed, A multimedia report on television newsrooms' use of material provided by PR firms on behalf of paying clients, Center for Media and Democracy, April 6, 2006

Benefits for Broadcaster

As the Times also noted, “‘Many local stations are expanding their hours of news coverage without adding reporters.’ A video news release company, TVA Productions, said in a sales pitch to potential clients, ‘90 percent of TV newsrooms now rely on video news releases.’”

The pressure and desire to output more with less is increasing. Budgets and staff at news networks are shrinking, while there is continuing demand for news. “Ready-to-run segments” have at least two effects:

  • Broadcasters benefit as they get more reports without additional costs.
  • Propaganda is potentially allowed through, with less checks, and harder traceability as segments are fed through a vast network of broadcasters and redistributers.

The Times also noted that

A definitive accounting is nearly impossible. There is no comprehensive archive of local television news reports, as there is in print journalism, so there is no easy way to determine what has been broadcast, and when and where.

Still, several large agencies, including the Defense Department, the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services, acknowledge expanded efforts to produce news segments. Many members of Mr. Bush’s first-term cabinet appeared in such segments.

— David Barstow and Robin Stein, Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News, New York Times, March 13, 2005

In addition, “The State Department typically distributes its segments via satellite to international news organizations like Reuters and Associated Press Television News, which in turn distribute them to the major United States networks, which then transmit them to local affiliates.” In this way, a large audience is reached.

Fake news in the United Kingdom

Spin Watch reveals that the British media is also has fake news.

An investigation by them revealed for example, that “fake journalists” have been providing news reports to the BBC. “The BBC has been using these reports as if they were genuine news” when in fact some of the journalists were working for an organization “entirely funded by the British Ministry of Defence as a propaganda operation.”

The UK is awash with fake news, of which the examples here are only a taste, it is just that we don’t pay much attention to it. The American scandals over fake news are played out against the background of some pretty clear laws forbidding propaganda with a disguised source within the borders of the US. There are no laws forbidding fake news in the UK. Perhaps we needs some.

— David Miller, BBC broadcast “fake” news reports, Spin Watch, March 15, 2005

These issues are not new

An interview with John Stauber from prwatch.org notes that issues such as “fake news” have been around for years and the mainstream has hardly ever covered it, until the recent New York Times article:

I was absolutely elated to see The New York Times front page coverage with the inside spread.... In the more than 10 years that I have been investigating and reporting on the widespread use of public relations as news, there’s never, ever been a story like this. This widespread use of fake news, we’re talking thousands of stories a year. This is a billion dollar sub-industry of the P.R. industry has been going on for 20 years, and this is the first mainstream media expose of any length and depth about it.

... There’s so much money to be made or saved, if you will, by replacing real news on TV with fake news, that this will continue to be a widespread problem unless there’s a mobilization of outraged news viewers [for better standards, because] TV news directors and producers' [are] not going to want to give this up. This — we’re talking billions of dollars here in producing these and in airing them instead of going out and producing real news.

... the University of Amherst study ... and there have been other studies that have corroborated this ... that the American public, who watched the most TV coverage of that Gulf War, thought they knew the most, actually knew less than most people who were getting their news through newspapers, for instance, and yet were the strongest supporters of the war. So, the bottom line here is that if you are watching war on television, with all of the propaganda and video news releases that go along with it, you are actually being misinformed, and yet you’re more likely to support the war. Television is the number one source of so-called news for most Americans, and a huge proportion of that is fake news.

— State Propaganda: How Government Agencies Produce Hundreds of Pre-Packaged TV Segments the Media Runs as News, Democracy Now! Radio Broadcast, March 14, 2005

And as former CIA agent mentions in an interview, the US has been doing it since the 1950s and 1960s at least:

When I was in the agency from the late 1950s on through to the late 1960s, the agency had operations going internationally, regionally, and nationally, attempting to penetrate and manipulate the institutions of power in countries around the world, and these were things that I did in the CIA—the penetration and manipulation of political parties, trade unions, youth and student movements, intellectual, professional and cultural societies, religious groups and women’s groups and especially of the public information media. We, for example, paid journalists to publish our information as if it were the journalists’ own information. The propaganda operations were continuous. We also spent large amounts of money intervening in elections to favor our candidates over others.

— Philip Agee, The Nature of CIA Intervention in Venezuela, Interviewed by Jonah Gindin, Venezuelanalysis.com, March 22, 2005

More Information

The above only scratches the surface of a deep issue. The following, by no means exhaustive, can provide some additional information as starting points to find out more:

Alternatives for broken links

Sometimes links to other sites may break beyond my control. Where I can, I try to provide alternative links to backups or reposted versions here.

Next/Previous Page Navigation


These are the pages within this section on this web site that you can also read.

Posted by at No comments:

Human Rights Take Backseat to Oil

Rights Take Backseat to Oil

Oil is thicker than blood. The pursuit of oil has shed blood from many nations. Greed is the front runner, humanity takes a back seat and will eventually pull together to reconcile the difference between both. That would be my hope and my prayer for all humanity. ~kmw

Leaders accused of violations meet with White House
by Tom Raum

Searching for energy supplies and allies against Iran, the Bush administration is reaching out to leaders who rule countries that are rich in oil and gas but accused of authoritarian rule and human rights violations.

The presidents of Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan and Equatorial Guinea are all getting special attention. The effort sometimes seems at odds with President Bush's stated second-term goal of spreading democracy.

"If those countries were not oil producers, we would probably not be meeting with their leaders," said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy analyst with the Brookings Institution. "There is some tension with Bush's democracy-promotion agenda. They are pulling in different directions."

Bush meets Friday at the White House with the president of Azerbaijan, Ilham Aliev. Vice President Dick Cheney next week visits the central Asian nation of Kazakhstan and its leader President Nursultan Nazarbayev.

Human rights groups have criticized both leaders. But the two former Soviet republics are allies in the war on terrorism and both have significant energy reserves.

Administration officials defend the meetings and similar ones, noting that Bush and other officials make a point of raising human rights and other social policy concerns, as Bush did when Chinese President Hu Jintao visited last week.

In addition to promoting democracy, Bush talks about curing America's "addiction to oil," a phrase he repeated as he announced steps this week to help ease gasoline prices that have soared over $3 a gallon in some places. Some 60 percent of oil used by the U.S. comes from overseas.

The search goes on for stable supplies of oil from areas other than the volatile Persian Gulf — a search joined by energy-thirsty China and India.

But much of the world's remaining accessible oil is controlled by governments not particularly friendly to U.S. interests. Nigeria and Venezuela have become unstable suppliers. The government of Russian President Vladimir Putin has take steps to reassert state influence over Russia's strategically important oil sector.

Oil politics can make for some unusual diplomacy.

"I can tell you that nothing has really taken me aback as secretary of state than the way that the politics of energy is — I will use the word `warping' — diplomacy around the world," Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee this month.

Rice herself drew some fire for welcoming Equatorial Guinean President Teodoro Obiang Nguema to the State Department as "a good friend."

He seized power in a 1979 coup and his government has been regularly accused by the State Department of human rights violations, including torture and deaths of prisoners. But the country is also rich in oil and gas.

"The photograph of you and Mr. Obiang will be used by critics of the United States to argue that we are not serious about human rights and democratic reforms in a country with substantial oil wealth," Sen. Carl Levin (news, bio, voting record), D-Mich., wrote Rice in a letter his office released on Thursday.

Bush is also looking for help in confronting Iran's nuclear ambitions. He raised the issue during Hu's visit but failed to win a commitment from the Chinese leader. Beijing does not want to entertain sanctions against one of its major oil suppliers.

Azerbaijan shares a border with Iran, and Bush hoped to enlist the mostly Muslim nation's help in leaning on Iran to end its uranium enrichment program. But Aliev told a foreign-policy forum here on Wednesday that "Azerbaijan will not be engaged in any kind of potential operation against Iran." Human rights groups have accused Azerbaijan of restricting political and human rights.

Given Bush's emphasis on democracy, he should use Friday's visit "to discuss Azerbaijan's democracy deficit," said Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, an independent organization that promotes democracy worldwide.

State Department spokesman Adam Ereli defended the warm reception given Aliev, saying human rights is certainly an important issue between the two countries — but so are energy security, stability in the region and the fight against terrorism.

"And we pursue all of these in parallel while at the same time sticking to our principles and not sacrificing expediency for principle," Ereli said.

A White House statement said Bush would raise energy diversification, the war on terrorism and democracy promotion at Friday's meeting.

Iraq war critics have long challenged the administration's courting of Saudi Arabia and other undemocratic but oil-rich Gulf states. And Democrats are raising anew Bush's and Cheney's ties to the oil industry.

Bush's early career was in the Texas oilfields. In his 2000 campaign, he pledged to use that experience to jawbone oil producing nations to help keep down prices. Cheney once headed oil services giant Halliburton.

"People look at two oil men in the White House, and gasoline prices through the roof, and they likely assume that the president and the vice president are on the side of oil companies, not on the side of ordinary people," said Democratic pollster and strategist Mark Mellman.

Politics aside, big oil-consuming nations like the United States and China "are looking out at the world and seeing a stagnant supply and a very unstable supply," said Tom Collina, director of 20/20 Vision, an advocacy group that favors sharp reductions in U.S. energy consumption.

"It's going to be a security problem for the foreseeable future," Collina said.

Iraq isn't the only nation capable of, and justified in a civil war.

Posted by at No comments:

The Ongoing War on Truth in Iraq

By Dahr Jamail
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 18 April 2006

The people of England have been led in Mesopotamia into a trap from
which it will be hard to escape with dignity and honor.

They have been tricked into it by a steady withholding of information.
The Baghdad communiqués are belated, insincere, incomplete. Things have been far
worse than we have been told, our administration more bloody and
inefficient than the public knows ... We are today not far from a
disaster.*-- T.E. Lawrence (a.k.a. Lawrence of Arabia), The Sunday
Times, August 1920/

On Monday, April 17, my sources in Baghdad reported fierce fighting in
the al-Adhamiya neighborhood of the capital city, as well as fighting in
the al-Dora neighborhood. One source, who lives in the predominantly
Sunni area of Adhamiya, had been telling me the situation was
disintegrating for days leading up to this. There had been clashes every
day for four days leading up to yesterday's huge clash there, with
sporadic fighting between Sunni resistance fighters and members of the
two largest Shia militias. The armed wing of the Supreme Council for
Islamic Revolution in Iraq, the Badr Organization, and Muqtada al-Sadr's
Mehdi Army have been launching ongoing attacks against fighters in the
neighborhood. There is a shorter version of this description.

Civil war.

Yet we don't hear it described as such in the corporate media, nor from
the Cheney administration. Their propaganda insists that Iraq is not yet
in a civil war.

But in Adhamiya, every night now for several weeks roads have been
closed with tires, trunks of date palm trees and other objects to
prevent "kidnappers and Shia death squads" from entering the area,
according to one source, whom I'm keeping anonymous for security reasons.

His description of the fierce fighting in his neighborhood is quite
different from the reporting of it in mainstream outlets.

"Sunday night at 12:30 a.m. clashes started just like on the four
previous nights, but it was very heavy and from different directions. It
was different from the other nights in quantity and quality; it was
truly like the hell which I haven't seen even in the battles of the war
between Iraq and Iran during the eighties," wrote my source. He added
that mortars and rocket-propelled grenades were used, and so much
ammunition that the sky was "glowing red." The situation went on until
Monday morning. He said, "I usually have my cup of coffee in my small
backyard to drink it in a good atmosphere, but the minute I opened the
door someone from the interior ministry commandos shouted at me, telling
me to get inside or he'd shoot me. Of course I stayed inside and the
shooting continued in a very heavy way until 12:30 p.m., when the
American forces came to start helping the militia's attack on
al-Adhamiya after they were watching the scene from their helicopters."

He went on to state very clearly that "these were members of the Badr
militia and Sadr's Mehdi Army who were raiding the neighborhood."

Another witness at the scene wrote, "Men in police uniforms attacked the
neighbourhood. The Ministry of Interior claimed the uniformed men don't
belong to the puppet [Iraqi government] forces, but local residents are
quite sure they are special-forces from the Ministry of Interior,
probably Badr brigades. The neighbourhood was sealed off and the mobile
phone network was disconnected until 10:45 p.m. Electricity was cut off
from 10 a.m. on."

Meanwhile, Reuters obediently parroted
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060417/ts_nm/iraq_clashes_dc;_ylt=A0SOwkvr2ENEqXUBAxBZ.3QA;_ylu=X3oDMTA5aHJvMDdwBHNlYwN5bmNhdA-->
the US military by reporting that "Insurgents mount bold attack in
Baghdad," and saying, "About 50 insurgents mounted a brazen attack on
Iraqi forces in Baghdad on Monday, prompting U.S. troops to provide
support in a battle that lasted seven hours, a U.S. military spokesman
said. The guerrillas attacked Iraqi forces in the mostly Sunni Arab
district of Adhamiya in northern Baghdad overnight. Five rebels were
killed and one member of the Iraqi forces was wounded. There were no
U.S. casualties, said the spokesman."

While this press report quoted an Iraqi police official as saying,
"Adhamiya residents have taken up arms to prevent the Shi'ite militia
from entering," and "Adhamiya residents said Shi'ite militiamen
accompanied the Iraqi forces," it added that this could not be confirmed.

An Iraqi in Adhamiya confirmed this immediately after the clashes ended
by writing, "When the uniformed forces entered the neighbourhood, the
National Guards that are usually patrolling the streets left. Young
armed men from the neighbourhood fought side by side with mujahedin
against the attacking forces to protect Al-Adhamiya. Several residents
have been killed in the streets, but there are currently no figures
available. US troops also entered the neighbourhood. At first, they only
stood by and watched; later on they, too, fired at the locals, who tried
to repel the attacks. Later in the day, rumours circulated that another
fierce attack of Al-Adhamiya is planned on Wednesday, but ... couldn't
confirm this information."

Other news outlets directly contradict the aforementioned statement by
the US military spokesman, when one reported
<http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1155952.php/US_assault_on_Fallujah_leaves_three_Iraqi_civilians_dead>
that "gunmen clashed with residents in Baghdad's Aadhamiya district."

Of course, the military spokesman also failed to mention that on the
same day, "Four gunmen attacked a Sunni mosque
<http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/L17701162.htm>killing a guard
in the Adhamiya district of the capital."

Instead, we hear reporting that "[US] Army officials said they had
suffered no casualties, and plan to raid homes in search for the gunmen
<http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060417/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_violence>."

Disturbingly, this obvious US-backed Shia militia invasion of a Sunni
neighborhood may well be a prelude to what the US military is calling a
"second liberation of Baghdad" which they will carry out with the Iraqi
army when a new government is installed.

The Sunday Times reports
<http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2089-2136297,00.html> that US
commanders both in Iraq and at an army base in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas,
are planning a "carrot-and-stick" approach by offering suffering
populations "protection" from sectarian violence in exchange for
"rooting out insurgent groups or Al-Qaeda."

Sound like mafia tactics to you?

The article states that "Sources close to the Pentagon said Iraqi forces
would take the lead, supported by American air power, special
operations, intelligence, embedded officers and back-up troops.
Helicopters suitable for urban warfare, such as the manoeuvrable AH-6
"Little Birds" ... are likely to complement the ground attack."

This is disturbingly similar to what just occurred in al-Adhamiya.

Another glaring example of the Cheney administration/US military's
ongoing war on truth in Iraq is the open wound which is Fallujah.

Heavy-handed assaults by the US military continue in Fallujah, where as
recently as this Monday three Iraqi civilians were killed, along with 10
wounded in the Jebail district of the city. Of the 10 wounded, three
were women and two were children. According to Mustafa Karim
<http://news.monstersandcritics.com/middleeast/article_1155952.php/US_assault_on_Fallujah_leaves_three_Iraqi_civilians_dead>,
with an Iraqi security force in the city, "US forces fired on houses in
the district following confrontations with armed groups in the
vicinity." Karim added that residents of Fallujah have been demanding an
easing of the tight security procedures imposed by Iraqi and US armed
forces on the region since November 2004, which have obstructed the
passage of civilians into and out of the region, and "Fallujah has been
recently witnessing a renewed escalation of armed confrontations between
US forces and armed Iraqi groups."

In fact, fierce fighting in Fallujah has been ongoing since just a few
months after the November 2004 US attack, which destroyed most buildings
and homes in the city of 350,000 people.

But the US military doesn't want people to see that American soldiers
are dying there on nearly a daily basis as of late.
Rather than calling it Fallujah when soldiers die there, they prefer a sort of Bermuda
Triangle approach and use "Al-Anbar Province" for the location of these
deaths.

Let's have a brief glance at some soldiers killed recently in "Al-Anbar
Province":

* April 17, Department of Defense (DOD) announced (hyperlink 'announced'
with http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060417-12834.html )
the death of a Marine who "died April 14 from a non-hostile motor
vehicle accident in Al-Anbar province, Iraq."

* April 16, CENTCOM announced
<http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Casualty%20Reports%201/DispForm.aspx?ID=1212&Source=http%3A//www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Casualty%20Reports%201/Current%20Reports.aspx>:
"Camp Fallujah, Iraq - A Marine ... died due to enemy action while
operating in al Anbar Province April 15."

* April 16, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - Multi-National Forces (MNF) Iraq
announced <http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Releases/Apr/060416h.htm>: "Three
Marines ... died due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar
Province April 15."

* April 15, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - MNF Iraq announced
<http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Releases/Apr/060415b.htm>: "Two Marines died
and 22 were wounded due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar
Province April 13 ... Ten wounded Marines ... were evacuated to a
medical facility at Camp Fallujah."

* April 15, DOD announced
<http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060417-12833.html>: "four
Marines died April 15 when their HMMWV struck an improvised explosive
device during combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq."

* April 11, DOD announced
<http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060411-12793.html>: "Lance
Cpl. Juana NavarroArellano, 24 ... died April 8 from wounds received
while supporting combat operations in Al Anbar province, Iraq."

* April 10, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - CENTCOM announced
<http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Casualty%20Reports%201/DispForm.aspx?ID=1198&Source=http%3A//www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Casualty%20Reports%201/Current%20Reports.aspx%20>:
"A soldier ... died from wounds sustained due to enemy action while
operating in al Anbar Province April 8."

* April 10, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - CENTCOM announced
<http://www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Casualty%20Reports%201/DispForm.aspx?ID=1199&Source=http%3A//www.centcom.mil/sites/uscentcom1/Lists/Casualty%20Reports%201/Current%20Reports.aspx%20>:
"Two soldiers ... died due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar
Province April 9."

* April 8, Camp Fallujah, Iraq - MNF Iraq announced
<http://www.mnf-iraq.com/Releases/Apr/060408d.htm>: "A Marine ... died
from wounds sustained due to enemy action while operating in al Anbar
Province April 7."

Note the clue that several of these are issued from "Camp Fallujah, Iraq."

This is hardly a complete list of US soldiers killed in Fallujah, and
some of the aforementioned may not have actually been killed inside that
city. However, military announcements of the deaths of soldiers in other
places mention the name of specific cities, whether they occur in
Samarra <http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060417-12836.html>
or Tal Afar
<http://www.defenselink.mil/releases/2006/nr20060410-12790.html> or
elsewhere.

Obviously the US military is being intentionally vague when it comes to
their admittance of losing American soldiers within the city limits of
Fallujah. An email I received Monday from one of my sources in Fallujah
sheds much light as to why this is the case, not only in Fallujah, but
throughout Iraq.

"Resistance [in Fallujah] is very active and all the destruction to the
city by American soldiers did not succeed to stop them. You know the
city was totally destroyed in the November attack and is still
surrounded and closed for anyone other than citizens of the city. What
is going on now is that the Americans are trying to conceal their
failure here by not letting anybody in. There were at least five
explosions today and more than one clash between resistance fighters and
US soldiers. So all the military procedures, together with the thousands
of casualties, were in vain. In short, the American Army seems to be
losing control in this country and God knows what they will do in
revenge. I expect the worst to come."


This article originally posted on Truthout <http://www.truthout.org/>.
Posted by at No comments:

27.4.06

Subject to the Penalty of Death

By Dahr Jamail
http://dahrjamailiraq.com
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 25 April 2006

This weekend I received an email from a friend in Iraq. It read, "Salam
Dahr, I was in Ramadi today to ask about the situation. I was stunned
for the news of a father and his three sons executed in cold blood by US
soldiers, then they blasted the house. The poor mother couldn't stand
the shock, so she died of a heart attack."

Sounds unbelievable, until you consider this short clip
<http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm> from CNN,
which shows a war crime being committed by US troops in Iraq. In this
clip, shot on October 26, 2003, Marines are seen killing a wounded Iraqi
who was writhing on the ground, and cheering. One of the murderers then
told CNN, "These guys are dead now you know, but it was a good feeling
... and afterwards you're like, hell yeah, that was awesome, let's do it
again."

This clip alone is evidence of violations of several domestic and
international laws. In effect, all US soldiers, up to and including
their Commander in Chief, who commit these violations, like the man in
the aforementioned clip and the ones responsible for what my Iraqi
friend reports from Ramadi, are war criminals.

*The US Uniform Code of Military Justice*

It is important to note that US policy with regard to the treatment
accorded to prisoners of war and all other enemy personnel captured,
interned, or otherwise held in US Army custody during the course of a
conflict requires and directs that all such personnel be accorded
humanitarian care and treatment from the moment of custody until final
release or repatriation. The US Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ)
states clearly that the observance of this Code is fully and equally
binding upon US personnel, in whatever capacity they may be serving,
whether capturing troops, custodial personnel or any other. The UCMJ
applies equally to all detained or interned personnel, whether their
status is that of prisoner of war, civilian internee, or any other.

/It may be added here that it applies regardless of whether they are
known to have, or are suspected of having, committed serious offenses
that could be characterized as war crimes. The administration of
inhumane treatment, even if committed under stress of combat and with
deep provocation, is a serious and punishable violation under national
law, international law, and the UCMJ./

Soldiers who murder Iraqis are not the only ones violating the UCMJ. All
those who are witness to the atrocities but fail to report them to
concerned authorities are to be held equally guilty of violation.

The UCMJ clearly states that violations of this Code may result in an
individual being prosecuted as a war criminal, and that anyone observing
a violation of law, or suspecting one has happened, has a positive legal
obligation to report it to appropriate authorities. Failure to do so is
a violation in itself.

*The Geneva Conventions*

The US happens to be a signatory of the Geneva Conventions and is
therefore subject to all injunctions thereof. The video clip incident is
in violation of Geneva Convention I of August 12, 1949, for the
Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and the Sick in Armed
Forces in the Field

Interestingly, the video clip on the said web site was accompanied by a
comment by one Capt. James Kimber: "The current policy in Iraq is to
SHOOT ON SIGHT ANYBODY emplacing [sic] IEDs [Improvised Explosive
Devices] ... <http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5365.htm>"

If Kimber is to be believed and this has been the policy in Iraq, then
the higher-ups giving the orders may be held as directly implicated in
all such atrocities: read murders.

As for what happens if at some point Kimber is brought to trial for his
crimes, Marjorie Cohn, a professor at the Thomas Jefferson School of Law
in San Diego, has this to say, "Self defense is a defense to a homicide
prosecution only if the shooter had an honest and reasonable belief that
he had to defend himself or others from imminent death or great bodily
injury. The question is how imminent the danger would be from a planted
IED. There is also a factual question about whether the Marines were
telling the truth."

These comments of Professor Cohn are equally relevant in the Haditha
incident.

*Representations*

Roughly three years after the date of the video clip incident, this same
Capt. James Kimber appeared in a news story on April 10, 2006. The AP
wrote
<http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/14310414.htm>
that "three Marines have been relieved of their commands in connection
with problems during their deployment to Iraq." The three men relieved
were involved in the infamous Haditha incident on November 19, 2005, in
which 15 Iraqis from two families were slaughtered by Marines from their
battalion who went on the rampage after a roadside bomb killed one of
their colleagues.

A video taken by an Iraqi student of journalism that was obtained and
brought to wider public attention by Time Magazine showed a bedroom
floor smeared with blood and chunks of human flesh and bullet holes in
the walls of a room in one of the homes. The dead included seven women
and three children, including a three-year-old girl.

The three Marine officers are Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, commanding
officer of 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment; Capt. James S. Kimber,
commanding officer of Company K, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment; and
Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, commanding officer of Company I, 3rd
Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment.

While the recent AP story noted that no charges had been filed against
these men, "about a dozen 3rd Battalion Marines are being investigated
for war crimes in connection with the November 2005 incident in Haditha,
to determine if they violated the rules of military engagement."

Meanwhile, according to Lt. Lawton King, spokesman for the 1st Marine
Division at Camp Pendleton in California, Kimber and the others were
reassigned to new duties within their division because of a "lack of
confidence in their leadership abilities." He also said of the decision
to relieve the men of their command that, "It stems from their
performance during the entire deployment."

While the Naval Criminal Investigative Service has launched a criminal
investigation to determine whether the Iraqis were intentionally
massacred by the Marines, there has been little mention of this in the
media, or of the fact that there is a second investigation on to examine
the misleading explanations given by the military about the Haditha
killings.

*Mis-Representations*

What is remarkable is that Kimber's blanket statement suggests that all
Iraqis killed during the occupation, including those at Haditha, are
killed because they are found "emplacing" IEDs. It must be recognized
that officers like Kimber and those above him play an important role in
training Marines to behave the way they do in Iraq. Consequently,
officers who give these orders are as guilty of war crimes as those who
execute the orders in the field.

The responsibility of creating a situation in Iraq in which war crimes
are the norm and not the exception lies squarely with the officers and
commanders of the US Army, starting with the Commander in Chief, George
W. Bush.

*Admissions*

The prevailing mindset of American soldiers in Iraq is the one we see in
Kimber, that of a war criminal. Jody Casey, a 29 year-old veteran of the
occupation of Iraq, said, "I have seen innocent people being killed.
IEDs go off and [you] just zap any farmer that is close to you. You
know, those people were out there trying to make a living, but on the
other hand, you get hit by four or five of those IEDs and you get pretty
tired of that, too."

While he didn't participate in such killings himself, Casey said that
the overall atmosphere in Iraq was such that "you could basically kill
whoever you wanted - it was that easy. You did not even have to get off
and dig a hole or anything. All you had to do was have some kind of
picture. You're driving down the road at three in the morning. There's a
guy on the side of the road, you shoot him ... you throw a shovel off."

According to Casey, his unit had been advised by troops who had
previously served in the area [al-Anbar province] to keep shovels on
their vehicles. Each time an innocent Iraqi is killed, a shovel thrown
next to the body is evidence that the dead civilian, when killed, was in
the act of digging holes to plant roadside bombs.

Michael Blake, another veteran who was in Iraq the first year of the
occupation, revealed that the message US troops are given prior to their
deployment is: "Islam is Evil," and "They hate us." The 22-year-old
veteran, now a member of Iraq Veterans Against the War
<http://www.ivaw.net/>, said, "Most of the guys I was with believed it,"
confessing that he had witnessed innocent civilians killed
indiscriminately. He said that he did not partake of the atrocities, but
that it was true that "When IEDs would go off by the side of the road,
the instructions were - or the practice was - to basically shoot up the
landscape, anything that moved. And that kind of thing would happen a
lot ... so innocent people were killed."

*Law of the Land and Other Laws*

To keep the perspective right, let me repeat: it is the high ranking
officials in the Bush administration who are primarily responsible for
creating a situation in Iraq in which war crimes have been normalized.
According to the US Constitution, Article VI, paragraph 2: "This
Constitution, and the Law of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and /all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under
the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the
Land/; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing
in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding." (Emphasis added.)

To name just a few of the international laws broken by the
aforementioned atrocities, "All Treaties made" includes the Nuremberg
Tribunal Charter <http://deoxy.org/wc/wc-nurem.htm>, Principle VI (b),
which states "War crimes: ... murder, ill-treatment ... of civilian
population of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of
prisoners of war," and (c), "Crimes against humanity: Murder,
extermination ... and other inhuman acts done against any civilian
population ... when such acts are done ... in execution of or in
connection with any crime against peace or any war crime."

"All Treaties made" also includes the Geneva Conventions, Protocol 1,
Article 75: "(1) ... persons who are in the power of a Party to the
conflict ... shall be treated humanely in all circumstances ... (2) The
following acts are and shall remain prohibited ... whether committed by
civilian or by military agents: (a) violence to the life, health, or
physical or mental well-being of persons ... " and Protocol I, Art. 51:
"The civilian population ... shall not be the object of attack. Acts or
threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror
among the civilian population are prohibited." Article 57: ... parties
shall, "Do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be
attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects ... an attack shall
be cancelled or suspended if it becomes apparent that the objective is
not a military one ... "

Since the entire catastrophe in Iraq is primarily the handiwork of the
Commander in Chief of the United States Armed Forces, let it be noted
that under US Federal Law, the War Crimes Act of 1996
<http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002441----000-.html>
makes committing a war crime, defined as " ... a grave breach in any of
the international conventions signed at Geneva 12 August 1949, or any
protocol to such convention to which the United States is a party ... "
punishable by being " ... fined under this title or imprisoned for life
or any term of years, or both, /and if death results to the victim,
shall also be subject to the penalty of death/." (Emphasis added.)

I rest my case.


/Mike Ferner, a Vietnam-era vet and member of Veterans For Peace,
contributed to this article./
Posted by at No comments:

26.4.06

Truthdig - Reports - Robert Scheer: Top Spy’s Story on Prewar Intel Is Finally Told

Truthdig - Reports - Robert Scheer: Top Spy’s Story on Prewar Intel Is Finally Told

“The policy was set. The war in Iraq was coming and they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy.”
—Tyler Drumheller, formerly CIA’s top spy in Europe

Confession time: In fall 2004, during a crucial presidential election campaign, I made the mistake of playing by corporate media rules that amount to self-censorship.

Specifically, I joined other journalists in denying the public the right to learn of a definitive investigative report by CBS’ “60 Minutes” on President Bush’s disregard for the truth concerning the weapons-of-mass-destruction threat allegedly posed to the United States by Iraq. Having received an advance copy of the devastating segment, I honored CBS’ proprietary request not to write about the news it carried until after it aired.

Only, it never aired. CBS got cold feet, probably because of Dan Rather’s troubles over an unrelated story critical of the president. The suppressed story was solidly reported and, by exposing the Bush administration’s utter disregard for the truth concerning Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction, should have been made available to the public before the November election. Now, no one seems to care.

The segment finally aired this past Sunday, in a more robust form. Unfortunately, the response has been tepid; it seems the media, at least, have become jaded with all the endless examples of the president’s perfidy. But the CBS story remains very important as further evidence of the depths of the Bush administration’s deception.

Perhaps most damning is an interview, added for the broadcast version, with Tyler Drumheller, a CIA veteran of 26 years’ service who was the agency’s top spy in Europe until his retirement a year ago. According to him, before the war Hussein’s foreign minister had been “turned” and was talking secretly to U.S. intelligence. At first excited by this rare inside look at Hussein’s regime, the top dogs at the White House dropped the issue like a hot rock as soon as his information contradicted their overheated rationale for “preemptive” war.

“The policy was set,” Drumheller told CBS correspondent Ed Bradley. “The war in Iraq was coming. And they were looking for intelligence to fit into the policy, to justify the policy.”

That’s how more than three years later, after at least two major governmental investigations into prewar intelligence on Iraq and countless journalistic post-mortems, we are only just now finding out that a highly placed double agent in Iraq was poking a huge hole in the Hussein-as-WMD-bogeyman story.

“They were enthusiastic” at first, said Drumheller, “that we had a high-level penetration of Iraqis.” CIA Director George Tenet reported the news that Hussein’s foreign minister, Naji Sabri, was working covertly for the United States to a White House meeting attended by President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Their initial enthusiasm, Drumheller says, quickly turned to cold indifference when Sabri told them the opposite of what they wanted to hear.

“He told us that they had no active weapons-of-mass-destruction program,” said the ex-CIA official. “The [White House] group that was dealing with preparation for the Iraq war came back and said they were no longer interested. And we said ‘Well, what about the intel?’ And they said ‘Well, this isn’t about intel anymore. This is about regime change.’ ” US NEEDS A REGIME CHANGE

The White House refused to comment for the “60 Minutes” report, but CBS noted that Rice has said Sabri was just one source, and therefore not reliable. It was ironic, considering how heavily the Bush administration relied on the now infamous Iraqi defector “Curveball,” whose statements so informed the main administration allegations concerning Iraq’s biochemical weapons.

Drumheller was in contact with the German intelligence agency CIS, which had detained the man with the apt code name, and says he himself informed the top CIA officials that Curveball was an outright fraud.

“They certainly took information that came from single sources on the yellowcake story and on several other stories with no corroboration at all,” Drumheller said.

No wonder this man, who risked his life gathering intelligence for our country, has become a critic of the Bush administration. He is clearly unwilling to allow what the president has described as a permanent war to destroy our democracy. True patriotism is not the blind acceptance of presidential deceit.

Imperial ambition turns truth-tellers into enemies, by default, because their goal is not the exaltation of the leader’s power.

No wonder so many national security professionals, be they top generals or intelligence officials, have gone public recently to denounce how the Iraq war has been sold and fought: The Bush administration’s willful ignorance and buck-passing mock their dedicated service to the nation.

“It just sticks in my craw every time I hear them say it’s an intelligence failure,” Drumheller said. “This was a policy failure.”

It goes back futher than that....i.e 9/11
Posted by at No comments:

25.4.06

Abuses Found in Hiring at Iraq Bases

Abuses Found in Hiring at Iraq Bases
Violations of laws on human-trafficking prompt U.S. military's order for change
by Cam Simpson

WASHINGTON - The top U.S. commander in Iraq has ordered sweeping changes for privatized military support operations after confirming violations of laws against human-trafficking and other abuses by contractors involving possibly thousands of foreign workers on American bases, according to records obtained by the Chicago Tribune.

Gen. George W. Casey Jr. ordered that contractors be required by May 1 to return passports that have been illegally confiscated from laborers on U.S. bases after determining that such practices violated U.S. laws against trafficking for forced or coerced labor. Human brokers and subcontractors from South Asia to the Middle East have worked together to import thousands of laborers into Iraq from impoverished countries.

Two memos obtained by the Tribune indicate that Casey's office concluded that the practice of confiscating passports from such workers was widespread on American bases and in violation of the U.S. anti-trafficking laws.

The memos, including an order dated April 4 and titled "Subject: Prevention of Trafficking in Persons in MNF-I," or Multinational Forces-Iraq, say the military also confirmed a host of other abuses during an inspection of contracting activities supporting the U.S. military in Iraq. They include deceptive hiring practices; excessive fees charged by overseas job brokers who lure workers into Iraq; substandard living conditions once laborers arrive; violations of Iraqi immigration laws; and a lack of mandatory "awareness training" on U.S. bases concerning human trafficking.

Along with a separate memo from a top military procurement official to all contractors in Iraq, dated April 19 and titled, "Withholding of Passports, Trafficking in Persons," Casey's orders promise harsh actions against firms that fail to return passports or end other abusive practices. Contracts could be terminated, contractors could be blacklisted from future work, and commanders could physically bar firms from bases, the memos show.

"Contracts must incorporate appropriate language to compel the protection of individual rights" at the contract and subcontract levels, Casey's orders say, adding that it was his goal "to promote [the] rule of law in Iraq and in the labor recruiting process."

Under future contracts, Casey is requiring that all firms, no matter how far down the chain, "provide workers with a signed copy of their employment contract that defines the terms of their employment."

He is ordering that contracts include "measurable, enforceable standards for living conditions [e.g., sanitation, health, safety, etc.] and establish 50 feet as the minimum acceptable square footage of personal living space per worker," after finding that some conditions were substandard.

Contractors and subcontractors also must "comply with international laws" regarding transit, exit and entry procedures, "requirements for work visas," and Iraqi immigration laws.

The orders also mandate that future contracts and subcontracts include "language that prohibits contractors and subcontractors at all tiers from utilizing unlicensed recruiting firms, or firms that charge illegal recruiting fees."

The short-term impact of the orders is unclear, because the separate memo to contractors, which is dated April 19 and written by Col. Robert K. Boyles, a top official with the Joint Contracting Command-Iraq/Afghanistan, shows many of the reforms would be implemented by changes in the language in future contracts.

Nonetheless, the findings and actions represent a dramatic turnabout for the U.S. military, and come after three months of behind-the-scenes pressure on the Defense Department from State Department officials charged with monitoring and combating human trafficking worldwide.

The State Department launched an investigation and promised other actions this year in response to a series published Oct. 9-10 by the Tribune, "Pipeline to Peril," that detailed many of the abuses now noted in the memos.

The articles disclosed the often-illicit networks used to recruit low-skilled laborers from some of the world's most impoverished and remote locales to work in menial jobs on American bases in Iraq.

Although other firms also have contracts supporting the military in Iraq, the U.S. has outsourced vital support operations to Halliburton subsidiary KBR at an unprecedented scale, at a cost to the United States of more than $12 billion as of late last year.

KBR, in turn, has outsourced much of that work to more than 200 subcontractors, many of them based in Middle Eastern nations condemned by the United States for failing to stem human trafficking into their own borders or for perpetrating other human rights abuses against foreign workers.

About 35,000 of the 48,000 people working under the privatization contract last year were "Third Country Nationals," who are non-Americans imported from outside Iraq, KBR has said.

"Pipeline to Peril," which was based on reporting in the United States, Jordan, Iraq, Nepal and Saudi Arabia, described how some subcontractors and a chain of human brokers allegedly engaged in the same kinds of abuses routinely condemned by the State Department as human trafficking.

Melissa Norcross, a Halliburton spokeswoman, issued a statement from the company yesterday saying that KBR "fully supports the Department of Defense's efforts to ensure that all contractor and subcontractor personnel working for the U.S. government be treated in a fair and humanitarian manner."

Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)
Photobucket