|
Post by RPankn on Apr 29, 2004 4:08:15 GMT -5
By DAVID CRARY AP NATIONAL WRITER NEW YORK -- U.S. military police stacked Iraqi prisoners in a human pyramid, and attached wires to one detainee to convince him he might be electrocuted, according to photographs obtained by CBS News which led to criminal charges against six American soldiers. CBS said the photos, shown Wednesday night on "60 Minutes II," were taken late last year at Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad, where American soldiers were holding hundreds of prisoners captured during the invasion and occupation of Iraq. In March, the U.S. Army announced that six members of the 800th Military Police Brigade faced court martial for allegedly abusing about 20 prisoners at Abu Ghraib. The charges included dereliction of duty, cruelty and maltreatment, assault and indecent acts with another person. In addition to those criminal charges, the military has recommended disciplinary action against seven U.S. officers who helped run the prison, including Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinski, the commander of the 800th Brigade, a senior military official said Wednesday in Baghdad. The investigation recommended administrative action against several of the commanders, which could include punishments up to relieving them of their commands, said the official, speaking on condition on anonymity. When the abuse charges were first announced, U.S. military officials declined to provide details about the evidence. But on Wednesday, at a news briefing in Baghdad, Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt said the investigation began in January when an American soldier reported the abuse and turned over evidence that included photographs. "That soldier said, 'There are some things going on here that I can't live with,'" said Kimmitt, who also confirmed that CBS had obtained the photographs. One picture shows an Iraqi prisoner who was told to stand on a box with his head covered and wires attached to his hands. CBS said the prisoner was told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted. In another photograph, prisoners' bodies were stacked in a pyramid, and one man had a slur written in English on his skin. The Army ordered an investigation into the actions of 17 soldiers from the 800th Brigade, which is based in Uniondale, N.Y. Ten were investigated for criminal actions, six of whom were charged in March. The other seven were officers who faced an administrative investigation. Those officers have received copies of the probe and will now have the chance to rebut the claims, with a final decision expected within a month, the senior military official said. In an interview with CBS correspondent Dan Rather, Kimmitt said the photographs were dismaying. "We're appalled," Kimmitt said. "These are our fellow soldiers, these are the people we work with every day, they represent us, they wear the same uniform as us, and they let their fellow soldiers down." "If we can't hold ourselves up as an example of how to treat people with dignity and respect, we can't ask that other nations do that to our soldiers," Kimmitt said. "60 Minutes II" identified one of the implicated soldiers as Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick, who described to Rather what he saw in the Iraqi prison. "We had no support, no training whatsoever, and I kept asking my chain of command for certain things, rules and regulations, and it just wasn't happening," Frederick said. "60 Minutes II" reported Frederick will plead not guilty to charges including maltreatment and assault, claiming the way the Army operated the prison led to the abuse of prisoners. He also said he did not see a copy of the Geneva Convention rules for handling prisoners of war until after he was charged, the show reported. The show also quoted from an e-mail which Frederick reportedly sent to his family in which he said of Iraqi prisoners: "We've had a very high rate with our styles of getting them to break; they usually end up breaking within hours." Former Iraqi prisoners told The Associated Press last November of mistreatment in detention, including beatings and punishments that included hours of lying bound in the sun. Amnesty International, the London-based human rights group, said in March that many former detainees in Iraq claimed to have been tortured and ill-treated by coalition troops during interrogation. Methods often reported, it said, included prolonged sleep deprivation, beatings, exposure to loud music and prolonged periods of being covered by a hood. Link: seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/apus_story.asp?category=1110&slug=Prisoner%20Abuse%20Iraq[ RPankn's note: I remember when these charges came out and family members of those charged were interviewed on TV and explained that there was no way their son/daughter/brother/sister, whatever the case, would do anything like this. In fact, the family members made it sound like they shouldn't be punished like it was some "youthful indescretion." And to think I used to live right across the street from this unit when I was in college.]
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Apr 29, 2004 4:11:44 GMT -5
Court Martial in Iraq
(CBS) Last month, the U.S. Army announced 17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners.
But the details of what happened have been kept secret, until now.
It turns out photographs surfaced showing American soldiers abusing and humiliating Iraqis being held at a prison near Baghdad. The Army investigated, and issued a scathing report.
Now, an Army general and her command staff may face the end of long military careers. And six soldiers are facing court martial in Iraq -- and possible prison time. Correspondent Dan Rather talks to one of those soldiers. And, for the first time, 60 Minutes II will show some of the pictures that led to the Army investigation. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to the U.S. Army, one Iraqi prisoner was told to stand on a box with his head covered, wires attached to his hands. He was told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.
It was this picture, and dozens of others, that prompted an investigation by the U.S. Army. On Tuesday, 60 Minutes II asked Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of coalition operations in Iraq, what went wrong.
“Frankly, I think all of us are disappointed by the actions of the few,” says Kimmitt. “Every day, we love our soldiers, but frankly, some days we're not always proud of our soldiers."
For decades under Saddam Hussein, many prisoners who were taken to the Abu Ghraib prison never came out. It was the centerpiece of Saddam’s empire of fear, and those prisoners who did make it out told nightmarish tales of torture beyond imagining – and executions without reason.
60 Minutes II talked about the prison and shared pictures of what Americans did there with two men who have extensive interrogation experience: Former Marine Lt. Col. Bill Cowan and former CIA Bureau Chief Bob Baer.
"I visited Abu Ghraib a couple of days after it was liberated. It was the most awful sight I've ever seen. I said, ‘If there's ever a reason to get rid of Saddam Hussein, it's because of Abu Ghraib,'” says Baer. “There were bodies that were eaten by dogs, torture. You know, electrodes coming out of the walls. It was an awful place."
"We went into Iraq to stop things like this from happening, and indeed, here they are happening under our tutelage,” says Cowan. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It was American soldiers serving as military police at Abu Ghraib who took these pictures. The investigation started when one soldier got them from a friend, and gave them to his commanders. 60 Minutes II has a dozen of these pictures, and there are many more – pictures that show Americans, men and women in military uniforms, posing with naked Iraqi prisoners.
There are shots of the prisoners stacked in a pyramid, one with a slur written on his skin in English.
In some, the male prisoners are positioned to simulate sex with each other. And in most of the pictures, the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up.
60 Minutes II was only able to contact one of the soldiers facing charges. But the Army says they are all in Iraq, awaiting court martial.
"What can the Army say specifically to Iraqis and others who are going to see this and take it personally," Rather asked Kimmitt, in an interview conducted by satellite from Baghdad.
"The first thing I’d say is we’re appalled as well. These are our fellow soldiers. These are the people we work with every day, and they represent us. They wear the same uniform as us, and they let their fellow soldiers down,” says Kimmitt.
“Our soldiers could be taken prisoner as well. And we expect our soldiers to be treated well by the adversary, by the enemy. And if we can't hold ourselves up as an example of how to treat people with dignity and respect … We can't ask that other nations to that to our soldiers as well."
“So what would I tell the people of Iraq? This is wrong. This is reprehensible. But this is not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are over here,” adds Kimmitt. “I'd say the same thing to the American people... Don't judge your army based on the actions of a few." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- One of the soldiers facing court martial is Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick.
Frederick is charged with maltreatment for allegedly participating in and setting up a photo, and for posing in a photograph by sitting on top of a detainee. He is charged with an indecent act for observing one scene. He is also charged with assault for allegedly striking detainees – and ordering detainees to strike each other.
60 Minutes II talked with him by phone from Baghdad, where he is awaiting court martial.
Frederick told us he will plead not guilty, claiming the way the Army was running the prison led to the abuse of prisoners.
“We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations,” says Frederick. “And it just wasn't happening."
Six months before he faced a court martial, Frederick sent home a video diary of his trip across the country. Frederick, a reservist, said he was proud to serve in Iraq. He seemed particularly well-suited for the job at Abu Ghraib. He’s a corrections officer at a Virginia prison, whose warden described Frederick to us as “one of the best.”
Frederick says Americans came into the prison: “We had military intelligence, we had all kinds of other government agencies, FBI, CIA ... All those that I didn't even know or recognize."
Frederick's letters and email messages home also offer clues to problems at the prison. He wrote that he was helping the interrogators:
"Military intelligence has encouraged and told us 'Great job.' "
"They usually don't allow others to watch them interrogate. But since they like the way I run the prison, they have made an exception."
"We help getting them to talk with the way we handle them. ... We've had a very high rate with our style of getting them to break. They usually end up breaking within hours." -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- According to the Army’s own investigation, that’s what was happening. The Army found that interrogators asked reservists working in the prison to prepare the Iraqi detainees, physically and mentally, for questioning.
“What, if any actions, are being taken against the interrogators?
"I hope the investigation is including not only the people who committed the crimes, but some of the people that might have encouraged these crimes as well,” says Kimmitt. “Because they certainly share some level of responsibility as well."
But so far, none of the interrogators at Abu Ghraib are facing criminal charges. In fact, a number of them are civilians, and military law doesn’t apply to them.
One of the civilian interrogators at Abu Ghraib was questioned by the Army, and he told investigators he had "broken several tables during interrogations, unintentionally," while trying to "fear up" prisoners. He denied hurting anyone.
In our phone conversation, 60 Minutes II asked Frederick whether he had seen any prisoners beaten.
“I saw things. We had to use force sometimes to get the inmates to cooperate, just like our rules of engagement said,” says Frederick. “We learned a little bit of Arabic, basic commands. And they didn't want to listen, so sometimes, you would just give them a little nudge or something like that just to get them to cooperate so we could get the mission accomplished."
Attorney Gary Myers and a judge advocate in Iraq are defending Frederick. They say he should never have been charged, because of the failure of his commanders to provide proper training and standards.
[Continued in next post]
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Apr 29, 2004 4:12:18 GMT -5
"The elixir of power, the elixir of believing that you're helping the CIA, for God's sake, when you're from a small town in Virginia, that's intoxicating,” says Myers. “And so, good guys sometimes do things believing that they are being of assistance and helping a just cause. ... And helping people they view as important." Frederick says he didn't see a copy of the Geneva Convention rules for handling prisoners of war until after he was charged. The Army investigation confirms that soldiers at Abu Ghraib were not trained at all in Geneva Convention rules. And most were reservists, part-time soldiers who didn't get the kind of specialized prisoner of war training given to regular Army members. Frederick also says there were far too few soldiers there for the number of prisoners: “There was, when I left, there was over 900. And there was only five soldiers, plus two non-commissioned officers, in charge for those 900 -- over 900 inmates." Rather asked Kimmitt about understaffing. "That doesn't condone individual acts of criminal behavior no matter how tired we are. No matter how stretched we are, that doesn't give us license and it doesn't give us the authority to break the law,” says Kimmitt. “That may have been a contributing factor, but at the end of the day, this is probably more about leadership, supervision, setting standards, abiding by the Army values and understanding what's right, and having the guts to say what's right.” -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Brig. Gen. Janice Karpinsky ran Abu Ghraib for the Army. She was also in charge of three other Army prison facilities that housed thousands of Iraqi inmates. The Army investigation determined that her lack of leadership and clear standards led to problems system wide. Karpinski talked with 60 Minutes’ Steve Kroft last October at Abu Ghraib, before any of this came out. "This is international standards,” said Karpinski. “It's the best care available in a prison facility." But the Army investigation found serious problems behind the scenes. The Army has photographs that show a detainee with wires attached to his genitals. Another shows a dog attacking an Iraqi prisoner. Frederick said that dogs were “used for intimidation factors.” Part of the Army's own investigation is a statement from an Iraqi detainee who charges a translator - hired to work at the prison - with raping a male juvenile prisoner: "They covered all the doors with sheets. I heard the screaming. ...and the female soldier was taking pictures." There is also a picture of an Iraqi man who appears to be dead -- and badly beaten. "It's reprehensible that anybody would be taking a picture of that situation,” says Kimmitt. But what about the situation itself? “I don't know the facts surrounding what caused the bruising and the bleeding,” says Kimmitt. “If that is also one of the charges being brought against the soldiers, that too is absolutely unacceptable and completely outside of what we expect of our soldiers and our guards at the prisons." Is there any indication that similar actions may have happened at other prisons? “I'd like to sit here and say that these are the only prisoner abuse cases that we're aware of, but we know that there have been some other ones since we've been here in Iraq,” says Kimmitt. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- When Saddam ran Abu Ghraib prison, Iraqis were too afraid to come ask for information on their family members. When 60 Minutes II was there last month, hundreds had gathered outside the gates, worried about what is going on inside. "We will be paid back for this. These people at some point will be let out,” says Cowan. “Their families are gonna know. Their friends are gonna know." This is a hard story to have to tell when Americans are fighting and dying in Iraq. And for Cowan, it’s a personal issue. His son is an infantry soldier serving in Iraq for the last four months. Rather asked Cowan what he would say to "that person who is sitting in their living room and saying, ‘I wish they wouldn't do this. It's undermining our troops and they shouldn't do it.’" "If we don't tell this story, these kinds of things will continue. And we'll end up getting paid back 100 or 1,000 times over,” says Cowan. “Americans want to be proud of each and everything that our servicemen and women do in Iraq. We wanna be proud. We know they're working hard. None of us, now, later, before or during this conflict, should wanna let incidents like this just pass." Kimmitt says the Army will not let what happened at Abu Ghraib just pass. What does he think is the most important thing for Americans to know about what has happened? "I think two things. No. 1, this is a small minority of the military, and No. 2, they need to understand that is not the Army,” says Kimmitt. “The Army is a values-based organization. We live by our values. Some of our soldiers every day die by our values, and these acts that you see in these pictures may reflect the actions of individuals, but by God, it doesn't reflect my army." Two weeks ago, 60 Minutes II received an appeal from the Defense Department, and eventually from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, to delay this broadcast -- given the danger and tension on the ground in Iraq. 60 Minutes II decided to honor that request, while pressing for the Defense Department to add its perspective to the incidents at Abu Ghraib prison. This week, with the photos beginning to circulate elsewhere, and with other journalists about to publish their versions of the story, the Defense Department agreed to cooperate in our report. © MMIV, CBS Worldwide Inc. All Rights Reserved. Link: www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/27/60II/main614063.shtml
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Apr 29, 2004 4:36:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Apr 29, 2004 4:43:35 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by karpomrx on Apr 29, 2004 17:36:51 GMT -5
The very nature of war precludes ethical behavior. . To believe that young people in a place where these "foreigners" don't even speak american, won't show the least bit of gratitude for all that freedom their gettin', they don'even have big macs or cold beer in this poor, backwards place. We are exporting our most representative product there, our young patriots. They will soon be made aware of the fact that there are 25 million people to subdue, and most of them don't even know who Brittney Spears is.
|
|
|
Post by POA on Apr 29, 2004 17:46:16 GMT -5
:o
RPankn, I think the worst part of the photographs that you found (I'm glad you did by the way), is that these...'people' were smiling while they were doing this like it was a d**n barbeque.
Monsters.
|
|
|
Post by Ropegun on Apr 29, 2004 18:01:01 GMT -5
Something that stands out to me in these photographs is that there are women involved, and not just men.
I've had many discussions in TSC about such subjects as this, and the feminist contingent always states that women don't do these sorts of things.
I wonder what they would say to this?
Peace.
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Apr 30, 2004 4:34:58 GMT -5
Depravity as 'Liberation'
The torture of Iraqi prisoners by American soldiers at Abu Ghraib prison is emblematic of our crazed foreign policy by Justin Raimondo
The Abu Ghraib prison was a symbol of Saddam's horrific tyranny: electrodes hanging out of the walls, floors stained with the blood of god-knows-how-many victims, bodies dangling from meat-hooks, like in some cheap Grade-B horror flick. So when the Americans came and "liberated" the place, the long-suffering Iraqi people were supposed to be grateful. After all, the sadistic torturers of the Ba'athist regime were gone, and it was a new day – or was it?
Well, not all that new, according to a shocking report broadcast by CBS the other night. 60 Minutes II showed photos taken of American soldiers guarding the prison torturing their charges. The images show the American "liberators" liberating their own perverted libidos, posed next to naked prisoners who were being forced into simulating sex with each other. In one macabre shot, a hooded prisoner stands precariously perched on a pedestal, with electrodes attached to his arms: he is reportedly told that if he falls, he'll be electrocuted. There are several photos in which naked prisoners are stacked in a pyramid, and one with a slur written on his skin in English. Photos in the possession of the military authorities show a prisoner whose genitals are attached to wires. In one, a dog is shown attacking an Iraqi prisoner. The authorities are investigating the account of an Iraqi who alleges that a translator, hired by the Americans to work at Abu Ghraib, raped a male juvenile prisoner:
"They covered all the doors with sheets. I heard the screaming. ...and the female soldier was taking pictures."
Included in this photo-montage of Operation Iraqi Freedom is a picture of a badly beaten corpse.
"In most of the pictures," Dan Rather reports, "the Americans are laughing, posing, pointing, or giving the camera a thumbs-up."
This is how we're "liberating" Iraq.
Last month, 17 American soldiers, including the brigadier general in charge of all detention facilities in occupied Iraq, Brig. Gen. Janis Karpinski, were relieved of their duties: 6 face charges. The sickening details were kept secret, by journalists as well as the U.S. military, until the photos began to circulate independently of both. When CBS finally stopped sitting on this story, they spun it so that it was framed in terms of an apologia, as articulated by Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, deputy director of coalition operations in Iraq, who avers:
"So what would I tell the people of Iraq? This is wrong. This is reprehensible. But this is not representative of the 150,000 soldiers that are over here. I'd say the same thing to the American people... Don't judge your army based on the actions of a few."
We're supposed to believe that these are just a few rotten apples, that the overwhelming majority of U.S. occupation troops are regular Boy Scouts, busy building schools and helping little old ladies cross streets. To which one can only reply: Baloney!
Two competing narratives about the American occupiers are now vying for attention. One the one hand, we have Pat Tillman, the football hero who enlisted shortly after 9/11, with his square clean visage, almost a caricature of idealized American manhood, a selfless martyr who gave his all for a righteous cause. And on the other hand we have the grinning leering perverts of Abu Ghraib. Which is the real face of the American occupiers: John Wayne in "Flying Leathernecks" or John Holmes in "Freaky Leatherboys"?
Just ask the Iraqis, who, according to the latest Gallup poll, see their American occupiers as "uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country's people, religion and traditions." USA Today reports:
"Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll."
And that was before the Abu Ghraib outrage….
The CBS News piece is in many ways almost as outrageous as the events it describes. To begin with, the entire story is framed by General Kimmitt's apologia: it also gives a lot of time to the craven excuses of one of the accused soldiers, who blames his disgusting behavior on a lack of "training." Army Reserve Staff Sgt. Chip Frederick is so typically contemporary American in his whining refusal to take responsibility that it would be funny if it wasn't so pathetic:
"We had no support, no training whatsoever. And I kept asking my chain of command for certain things...like rules and regulations. And it just wasn't happening."
We'll have to take Frederick at his word that he required "training" in order to be restrained from acting like a mad dog. What a surprise that, in "real" life, he's a prison guard in Virginia, described by his boss as "one of the best." One supposes that's why he needs "rules and regulations" to prevent him from literally f*cking over his charges.
As contemptible as he is, Frederick is performing a great service in exposing the responsibility of his superiors, and demonstrating that this wasn't the exception that proves the rule of American beneficence. Frederick's testimony shows that his actions amounted to the implementation of an informal policy:
"Frederick says Americans came into the prison: 'We had military intelligence, we had all kinds of other government agencies, FBI, CIA ... All those that I didn't even know or recognize.' Frederick's letters and email messages home also offer clues to problems at the prison. He wrote that he was helping the interrogators:
"'Military intelligence has encouraged and told us 'Great job.' They usually don't allow others to watch them interrogate. But since they like the way I run the prison, they have made an exception. We help getting them to talk with the way we handle them. ... We've had a very high rate with our style of getting them to break. They usually end up breaking within hours.'"
[continued in next post]
|
|
|
Post by RPankn on Apr 30, 2004 4:35:40 GMT -5
The CBS report adds: "The Army found that interrogators asked reservists working in the prison to prepare the Iraqi detainees, physically and mentally, for questioning. " Will any of these interrogators, who are civilians and supposedly not subject to military authority, face charges? Gen. Kimmitt says he hopes so, but that remains to be seen. However, whatever action is taken, or not taken, the conclusion that we are dealing here with the results of a deliberate policy, and not an exceptional case, is inescapable. The role played by CBS in all this is far from admirable. True, they exposed it, and broadcast a very few of the horrific photos. They also covered it up for at least a month, and might have done so indefinitely if not for the fact that the story was beginning to leak out: "Two weeks ago, 60 Minutes II received an appeal from the Defense Department, and eventually from the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Richard Myers, to delay this broadcast – given the danger and tension on the ground in Iraq." One wonders if the "danger and tension on the ground in Iraq" was the Defense Department's main concern: after all, the Iraqis surely know what is happening to them. Abused detainees have families, and friends, and word travels fast. More likely it is the "danger and tension" on the ground in this country, the growing outcry on the home front against a futile and increasingly ugly war, that worries not only the Pentagon bureaucrats but their bosses in the White House. If they succeed in riding out the storm, it will be with the invaluable help of the American media: "60 Minutes II decided to honor that request, while pressing for the Defense Department to add its perspective to the incidents at Abu Ghraib prison. This week, with the photos beginning to circulate elsewhere, and with other journalists about to publish their versions of the story, the Defense Department agreed to cooperate in our report." If the truth was going to come out anyway, then better it should be as seen through the prism of the American commander, a whiney spineless automaton who needs "rules and regulations" to tell him how to act like a human being, and Frederick's lawyer, one Gary Myers, who declares: "The elixir of power, the elixir of believing that you're helping the CIA, for God's sake, when you're from a small town in Virginia, that's intoxicating. And so, good guys sometimes do things believing that they are being of assistance and helping a just cause. ... And helping people they view as important." Okay, let's see if I get this straight: the inhabitants of small towns in Virginia are entirely bereft of any moral sensibility. Rural life, we are supposed to believe, leads to a blatant disregard for human dignity and decency. Such rubes as Sgt. Frederick are so easily intoxicated by power, or proximity to it, that they cannot contain their inherent animality, and cannot be held responsible for their actions – any more than a cougar can be accused of murder for hunting its prey. Them city slicker lawyers, what'll they think of next? It's an interesting theory, not because it's clever but because it is profoundly and offensively stupid. I doubt it will hold up in a court of law – especially not an Iraqi one. You can bet your bottom dollar, however, that the Iraqis will never be allowed to sit in judgement of Sgt. Frederick and his fellow sadists. Not even when they are handed back their "sovereignty" on June 30. Mr. Myers has a point about "the elixir of power," however, although not in the way he intended. This poisonous brew is what we have quaffed in Iraq, a potent mixture of high-sounding hubris and militant megalomania. Is it any wonder that its effects are to inspire a kind of madness? Our policy of perpetual war is not so much a foreign policy as a form of collective insanity. We went in to "liberate" the people of Iraq, and wound up torturing them. If supporters of this disastrous war have some kind of explanation for that, I'd love to hear it. Meanwhile, a note to the "mainstream" media: let's start interviewing the victims, rather than the perpetrators, of these heinous acts, to get some idea of what really happened. It is also necessary to start naming names. Unless we want to encourage more such incidents in the future, public shaming can act as a deterrent. – Justin Raimondo Link: www.antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2443
|
|
|
Post by Moses on May 2, 2004 2:28:50 GMT -5
What the US papers don't say Michael Hann examinesthe air of secrecy and silence surrounding the US media's treatment of George Bush's 'war on terror' Friday April 30, 2004 The Guardian American contractors and soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners in a prison outside Baghdad? A huge story, by anyone's standards, surely, especially when pictures of the abuse were broadcast on the US TV network CBS. So it was no surprise that newspapers around the world made huge, horrified play of the events at the Abu Ghraib prison. It was more of a surprise, however, that the story did not receive the same level of coverage in the US papers. The Baltimore Sun, however, was d**ning in its verdict. "Television footage of the mistreatment of Iraqi war prisoners by their American captors was shockingly disturbing and hauntingly reminiscent of the horror stories from the regime of Saddam Hussein," it said. Punishment of those responsible, it added, would not on its own be sufficient response. "The Pentagon must be held accountable if the military failed to provide the training, staffing, supervision and leadership required to ensure that prisoners of war are treated humanely." Perhaps the difference between the US coverage and that elsewhere should have been expected. CBS admitted it had come under severe pressure from the Pentagon not to broadcast the images, and the issue of what is and what is not fit for US public consumption has been an ongoing theme, applicable to events both domestic and foreign. Tonight, for example, the ABC network's Nightline programme is to feature host Ted Koppel reading the names of all members of the American military killed in Iraq, while pictures of them appear on screen. But, as the New York Daily News reported, one local broadcasting group that controls eight ABC-affiliated stations has "angrily pulled" the show, claiming the naming of the dead "is a blatant anti-war ploy". The White House reacted angrily last week to the publication of the flag-draped coffins of US soldiers who have died in Iraq. But Daniel Schorr, writing in the Christian Science Monitor, wondered why. "Considering that no individual identification is visible in the pictures, it is hard to understand the justification for clamping the secrecy lid on the solemn procession of flag-draped coffins being carried off the cargo planes," he wrote. "I cannot avoid the suspicion that President George Bush - who has yet to attend to a funeral service for any of the honoured dead that he has sent to war - has no interest in calling attention to the mounting number of casualties in a battle that was far from over last May 1, when the president declared 'major combat operations' in Iraq had ended." The appearance yesterday of Mr Bush and vice-president thingy Cheney before the commission investigating the 9/11 attacks provided another example of the debate. "There was no press coverage allowed, no recording, no transcript to be made available later, no testimony given under oath - and no good reason for any of it," said the Boston Globe. "Mr Bush, who pulled the nation together in 2001, might have done so again yesterday by displaying a willingness to be open - at least in transcript form - about what may have gone wrong on his watch ... [And] going public before the commission with that attitude might have won Mr Bush international respect." As Alessandra Stanley put it in the New York Times: "On a day when viewers could watch American marines battling rebels in Falluja and see Jayson Williams squirm in his courtroom seat while awaiting a verdict on manslaughter charges, the blackout at the White House was striking; throughout the day, the torrent of words used on cable news shows to describe the meeting ('exceptionally rare', 'extraordinary', 'historic') clashed almost comically with the meagre visual images ... The nonvisual event was so anathema to television that at one point, the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan said it seemed as if 'the event took place in the 18th century'." The whole aim of the event had been to make Mr Bush look "solemn and presidential, capturing the news for a full day of headlines that can't help but further tie down his campaign stance as the wartime president", scoffed James Ridgeway on the Village Voice website. He argued that the event had "little to do with informing the public". It was "just a nice friendly get-together". A contrast to the secrecy and silence that seem to be characterising this stage of Mr Bush's "war on terror" came from the supreme court on Wednesday. The justices heard the cases of two US citizens jailed after the 9/11 attacks, on the grounds of being enemy combatants. Yaser Esam Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan, suspected of fighting for the Taliban, and Jose Padilla was arrested at Chicago airport on suspicion of planning to detonate a radioactive bomb. The supreme court allowed the hearing to be broadcast live, on the grounds of exceptional national interest, a decision welcomed by the Los Angeles Times. "For too long ... justices have been skittish about letting Americans listen in on their proceedings while the justices are still deliberating," said the paper. "But the compelling broadcasts of Wednesday's hearing in the enemy combatant cases, which turned into a dramatic civics lesson, demonstrate why the public should be able to hear all cases that quickly." The recordings, said the Times, showed the justices posing "appropriately sceptical questions" about Mr Bush's insistence in his right to order detentions, and would "encourage Americans to wrestle with these questions along with the justices". · To listen to recordings of the detainee hearings, visit www.latimes.com/detain. (registration required). www.informationclearinghouse.info/article6114.htm
|
|