Best wishes to the BBC

Dear Ms. Helen Boaden, director of BBC news

Could you please ask Paul Wood to wear a military uniform the next time he says that British and American forces "came to Iraq in the first place to bring democracy and human rights" ? [BBC News at Ten, 22.12]

I thought it was for Iraq’s WMD and the imminent threat these WMD would pose to the security of the US and the UK. Who’s lying?

Also, since democracy and human rights are not items one can export but a process depending on the struggle of popular movements, what Mr Wood says is simply an absurdity, a lie, a propaganda’s tool.

Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, kidnappings, tortures, rapes, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, white phosphorous, Fallujah… This is what the coalition of the killing has brought to Iraq.

And here is what the Iraqi think:

• Forty-five per cent of Iraqis believe attacks against British and American troops are justified - rising to 65 per cent in the British-controlled Maysan province;

• 82 per cent are "strongly opposed" to the presence of coalition troops;

• less than one per cent of the population believes coalition forces are responsible for any improvement in security;

• 67 per cent of Iraqis feel less secure because of the occupation;

• 43 per cent of Iraqis believe conditions for peace and stability have worsened;

• 72 per cent do not have confidence in the multi-national forces.

The source of this poll is that UK Ministry of Defence Mr Paul seems working for.

Best wishes for the holiday season, Ms. Helen Boaden. I hope you, Mr Wood and all the BBC will dedicate a few seconds to those hundreds of thousands of children, women, young and old people, innocent civilians who have been murdered also because of your silences and your lies. Anything you will drink to celebrate the new year will have the bitter taste of blood. The blood of your victims.

Sincerely,
Gabriele Zamparini

UPDATE: On 6 January 2006 I received the following e-mail from Helen Boaden

Paul Wood's analysis of the underlying motivation of the coalition is borne out by many speeches and remarks made by both Mr Bush and Mr Blair.

Yours sincerely

Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News

Guardians of Power

Guardians of Power
Exclusive interview with Media Lens’ editors David Edwards and David Cromwell By Gabriele Zamparini (*)


“Guardians of Power. The Myth of the Liberal Media” is a new book by David Edwards and David Cromwell, the two editors of Media Lens, an excellent watchdog “correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media”.

According to Noam Chomsky "Regular critical analysis of the media, filling crucial gaps and correcting the distortions of ideological prisms, has never been more important. Media Lens has performed a major public service by carrying out this task with energy, insight, and care."

Edward Herman wrote, "Media Lens is doing an outstanding job of pressing the mainstream media to at least follow their own stated principles and meet their public service obligations. It is fun as well as enlightening to watch their representatives, while sometimes giving straightforward answers to queries, often getting flustered, angry, evasive, and sometimes mis-stating the facts."

John Pilger thinks that “The creators and editors of Medialens, David Edwards and David Cromwell, have had such influence in a short time that, by holding to account those who, it is said, write history’s draft, they may well have changed the course of modern historiography (…) Not since Noam Chomsky’s and Edward Herman’s Manufacturing Consent have we had such an incisive and erudite guide through the media’s thicket of agendas and vested interests. Indeed, they have done the job of true journalists: they have set the record straight. For this reason, Guardians of Power ought to be required reading in every media college. It is the most important book about journalism I can remember.”

But not everybody agrees. The Guardian’s Readers’ Editor Ian Mayes, who also happens to be the President of the Organization of News Ombudsmen, recently described Media Lens as “an electronic lobby group” and expressed his views about the Guardian’s readers, his job and the very idea of democracy: “I did not engage with or respond to this lobby, whose members poured several hundred emails into the Guardian. I did not read more than a tiny sample of the emails directed at me. I consider organised lobbies in general to be in effect - whatever the rights or wrongs of their position - oppressive to put it mildly.” (1)

I asked David Edwards and David Cromwell to tell me more about their book and their work at Media Lens.

QUESTION: Why the title (and the subtitle) "Guardians of Power. The myth of the liberal media"?

ANSWER: The title is obviously a not very subtle reference to the Guardian, but it also refers to the media in general. The sub-title is intended to indicate that the liberal media - the best media, like the Guardian, the Independent, the Observer (as it used to be) and the BBC - play a really crucial role in protecting power. In a totalitarian system it doesn't matter what people think - if they get out of line, you can hit them on the head, drag them away in the middle of the night. Thanks to centuries of popular struggle, violence of that kind is no longer an option for Western elites. Instead, in our society, control is primarily maintained by controlling what people think.

It's ironic that we tend to associate this kind of thought control with Soviet-style systems, but in fact it's far more important in an ostensibly democratic society like ours. If you are to convince people in our society that they are free, you can't just censor everything as they did in the Soviet Union, because then everyone knows they're living in a kind of prison. In our society people are bombarded with business and political propaganda that shapes their assumptions about the world. But they also have access to some honest ideas in comparatively small circulation newspapers like the Guardian and the Independent, and primarily through one or two honest writers like John Pilger and Robert Fisk. This acts as a kind of vaccine - tiny doses of dissent that inoculate people against the idea that they are subject to thought control. But the reality is that this dissent is flooded and overwhelmed by propaganda that keeps us thinking the right way, keeps us passive and in line. By the way, we don't intend to suggest that this is the result of any kind of conspiracy. It happens as a kind of side-effect of the media's pursuit of maximised profits in a state-capitalist society.

QUESTION: What is Media Lens? When did ML start? How does ML work?

ANSWER: Media Lens is an attempt to subject the mainstream corporate media to honest, rational analysis uncompromised by personal hopes of employment, payment or status within the media system. We do this by analysing the media's versions of events and comparing these with what we believe are honest, uncompromised versions based on rational arguments, verifiable facts and multiple, credible sources. We provide references and links for all of these so that readers can evaluate for themselves whether we are distorting the facts in some way. Comparing the two versions, we then invite readers to judge for themselves which version is more reasonable and accurate, and to send their opinions to both journalists and us. It is vital for us to provide an honest and accurate account of the media version because we are not 'selling a line' - we are encouraging readers to make a rational judgement on the basis of the facts. This is why we think it is wrong to describe us as a "lobby", as often happens. The tobacco lobby, for example, is not motivated to provide the public with the facts it needs to make an informed judgement. The goal of the tobacco lobby is to subordinate truth to maximised profits. Their goal is to manipulate the public, to persuade them of their version of the truth. Our goal is to empower the public to establish their +own+ version of the truth based on their own evaluation of the arguments. The world needs self-confident, critical thinking, empowered human beings, not Media Lens drones.

Our readers can check the media version of events for themselves, so we have every reason to be accurate and honest in describing these. Our readers can also easily check out the credibility and accuracy of the facts and sources we give because, as discussed, we provide references for all of them. As Noam Chomsky has noted many times, dissidents challenging the corporate status quo are automatically subjected to intense and relentless attack regardless of the honesty and accuracy of their views - our arguments have to be extremely accurate and reasonable if they are to stand a chance of being taken seriously.

Also, unlike, say, corporate lobbies, we are not motivated by profit, nor status or power. Our goal is to provide the facts so that people can draw their own conclusions.

QUESTION: Please, give us a couple of concrete examples of your work?

ANSWER: Example One - Climate Change and Advertising

An editorial in the Independent on December 3, 2005 declared: "Global warming and the need for all of us to act now to avoid catastrophe":

"Governments must demand greater energy conservation from industry. And action must be taken to curtail emissions from transport. That means extensive investment in the development of alternative fuels and the taxation of air flights."

The editors concluded:

"But it is not just governments that have a responsibility. Individuals must act too. By opting to cycle or walk, instead of driving everywhere, we can all do something to reduce emissions. If more of us turned off electrical devices when not in use and recycled our waste properly, our societies would be hugely less energy inefficient... A failure to act now will not be forgiven by future generations."

As though these words had not appeared, the rest of the paper returned to adverts, consumer advice and financial news ("bet on easyJet to fly higher"). The Independent's holiday supplement, The Traveller, urged readers to climb on fossil fuel burning planes and visit Paris, Brussels, Syria, Panama, Costa Rica, Nicaragua, Aspen, Chamonix, Mallorca, Australia, Dubai, New Zealand, Lapland, Spain, North America, Austria, Germany, the Maldives, and on and on.

Advertising industry sources told us that between January 1 and October 7, 2005, Independent News and Media PLC - owners of the Independent newspapers - received the following revenues from advertisers:

BP Plc
£11,769 (this figure has risen substantially since October 7 as a result of the 'Beyond Petroleum' campaign)

Citroen UK Ltd
£418,779

Ford Motor Company Ltd
£247,506

Peugeot Motor Co Plc
£260,920

Renault UK Ltd
£427,097

Toyota (GB) Ltd
£715,050

Vauxhall Motors Ltd
£662,359

Volkswagen UK Ltd
£555,518

BMI British Midland
£60,847

Bmibaby Ltd
£12,810

British Airways Plc
£248,165

Easyjet Airline Co Ltd
£59,905

Monarch Airlines
£15,713

Ryanair Ltd
£28,543 (Email to Media Lens, December 12, 2005)


It is enlightening to compare these figures with the Independent editors' suggestion, cited above:

"Individuals must act too. By opting to cycle or walk, instead of driving everywhere, we can all do something to reduce emissions."

At the same time, the Independent is hosting adverts specifically designed to disarm dissent and pacify the public.

The point is that the media are structurally obliged to remain on square one. What is a corporate business like the Independent to say about the impact of its own corporate advertising on environmental collapse? What is it to say about the remorseless activities of its business allies working to bend the public mind to their will over decades? What is to say about their determination to destroy all attempts to subordinate short-term profits to action on climate change? What is it to say about the historical potency of people power in challenging systems of entrenched and irresponsible power of this kind, of which it is itself a part?

Example Two: An Exchange With Newsnight Editor, George Entwistle

In researching a New Statesman article, Media Lens co-editor, David Edwards, interviewed George Entwistle (March 31, 2003), then editor of the BBC's flagship current affairs programme, Newsnight. Part of the interview involved asking Entwistle if Scott Ritter had appeared on Newsnight in recent months. Ritter, a UN weapons inspector in Iraq 1991-98, described how Iraq had been 'fundamentally disarmed' by 1998 without the threat of war, and how any retained weapons of mass destruction would likely have long since become harmless 'sludge'. He was almost completely ignored by the mainstream press ahead of the war. In 2003, the Guardian and Observer mentioned Iraq in a total of 12,356 articles. In these articles, Ritter was mentioned a total of 17 times.

David Edwards: 'Have you pitted Ritter against government spokespeople like Mike O'Brien and John Reid?'

George Entwistle: 'I can't recall when we last had Ritter on.'

DE: 'Have you had him on this year?'

GE: 'Not this year, not in 2003, no.'

DE: 'Why would that be?'

GE: 'I don't particularly have an answer for that; we just haven't.'

DE: 'Isn't he an incredibly important, authoritative witness on this?'

GE: 'I think he's an interesting witness. I mean we've had...'

DE: 'Well, he was chief UNSCOM arms inspector.'

GE: 'Absolutely, yeah. We've had Ekeus on, and lots of people like that.'

DE: 'But why not Ritter?'

GE: 'I don't have a particular answer to that... I mean, sometimes we phone people and they're not available; sometimes they are.'

DE: 'Well I know he's very keen, he's forever speaking all over the place. He's travelled to Iraq and so on...'

GE: 'There's no particular... there's no sort of injunction against him; we just haven't had him on as far as I'm aware.'

DE: 'The other claim is...'

GE: 'David, can I ask a question of you at this stage?'

DE: 'Yes.'

GE: 'What's the thesis?'

DE: 'What, sorry, on why you haven't...?'

GE: 'No, I mean all these questions tend in a particular direction. Do you think that Newsnight is acting as a pro-government organisation?'

DE: 'My feeling is that you tend to steer away from embarrassing the government [Entwistle laughs] in your selection of interviewees and so on, they tend to be establishment interviewees. I don't see people like Chomsky, Edward Herman, Howard Zinn, Michael Albert, you know - there's an enormous amount of dissidents...'

GE: 'Well we've being trying to get Chomsky on lately, and he's not wanted to come on for reasons I can't explain. What's the guy who was the UN aid programme guy...?'

DE: 'Denis Halliday?'

GE: 'Yeah, we've had him on. I think our Blair special on BBC2 confronted him [Blair] with all sorts of uncomfortable propositions.'

DE: 'The other thing is that UNSCOM inspectors, CIA reports and so on have said that any retained Iraqi WMD is likely to be "sludge" - that's the word they use - because, for example, liquid bulk anthrax lasts maybe three years under ideal storage conditions. Again, I haven't seen that put to people like John Reid and Mike O'Brien.'

GE: 'Um, I can't recall whether we have or not. Have you watched every... episode, since when?

DE: 'Pretty much. This year, for example. Have you covered that?'

GE: 'Um, I'll have to check. I mean, we've done endless pieces about the state of the WMD, about the dossier and all that stuff.'

DE: 'Oh sure, about that, but about the fact that any retained WMD is likely to be non-lethal by now, I mean...'

GE: 'I'll, I can... I'll have to have a look.'

DE: 'You haven't covered it have you?'

GE: 'I honestly, I don't know; I'd have to check. I genuinely can't remember everything we've covered.'

DE: 'Sure, but I mean it's a pretty major point isn't it?'

GE: 'It's an interesting point, but it's the kind of point that we have been engaging with.'

DE: 'Well, I've never seen it.'

GE: 'Well, I mean, I'll endeavour to get back to you and see if I can help.'

Following this conversation, Entwistle wrote to Edwards by email. He provided what he considered powerful evidence that Newsnight had in fact challenged the government case for war on Iraq. He cited this exchange between Newsnight presenter Jeremy Paxman and Tony Blair (Blair On Iraq – A Newsnight Special, BBC2, February 6, 2003)

TONY BLAIR:
Well I can assure you I've said every time I'm asked about this, they have contained him up to a point and the fact is the sanctions regime was beginning to crumble, it's why it's subsequent in fact to that quote we had a whole series of negotiations about tightening the sanctions regime but the truth is the inspectors were put out of Iraq so -

JEREMY PAXMAN:
They were not put out of Iraq, Prime Minister, that is just not true. The weapons inspectors left Iraq after being told by the American government that bombs would be dropped on the country. (The rest of the transcript followed, March 31)


We responded to Entwistle:

'You mention Paxman raising the myth of inspectors being thrown out. You're right, Paxman did pick him [Blair] up on the idea that inspectors were "put out" of Iraq, but then the exchange on the topic ended like this:

TONY BLAIR:
They were withdrawn because they couldn't do their job. I mean let's not be ridiculous about this, there's no point in the inspectors being in there unless they can do the job they're put in there to do. And the fact is we know that Iraq throughout that time was concealing its weapons.

JEREMY PAXMAN:
Right.


Right! Paxman let Blair get away with this retreat back to a second deception.' (David Edwards to Entwistle, March 31, 2003)


In fact the remarkable truth is that the 1991-98 inspections ended in almost complete success. As we have discussed, Ritter insists that Iraq was 'fundamentally disarmed' by December 1998, with 90-95% of its weapons of mass destruction eliminated. Thus, Entwistle's chosen example of Paxman powerfully challenging Blair is in fact an excellent example of him failing to make even the most obvious challenge.

QUESTION: How have the liberal media reacted to your work? Any examples?

ANSWER: Reactions have changed over time. Initially, the reaction was disbelief and open contempt. When we challenged the BBC's John Sweeney on child deaths in Iraq, he wrote: "I don't agree with torturing children. Get stuffed." (Email to Media Lens Editors, June 24, 2002)

A typical response has been to suggest that we and our readers can't possibly have read what has been written, or that we can't have watched what has been broadcast:

"I wonder - from your email - if you actually read the Guardian, or whether you are responding to a suggested form of words on a website?" (Email from Alan Rusbridger to Media Lens reader, 7 February, 2003).

ITN's head of news gathering, Jonathan Munro, wrote:

"It would help if the correspondents had actually watched the programmes. Most are round-robins and refer to pieces published in newspapers or in other media." (Email to Media Lens, February 17, 2003)

Observer editor Roger Alton here once again observes the customer-friendly protocol familiar to all who have engaged with the press:

"What a lot of balls ... do you read the paper old friend? ... "Pre-digested pablum [sic] from Downing Street..." my arse. Do you read the paper or are you just recycling garbage from Medialens?

Best
Roger Alton" (February 14, 2003)


It may be that the media are becoming less complacent about internet-based criticism. The Guardian readers' editor, Ian Mayes, noted recently:

"Immediately after what everyone involved took as the resolution of the complaint, the editor of the Guardian sent an email to about 400 of the people who had emailed the Guardian on the subject of the Chomsky interview. He took the opportunity to reject conspiracy theories claiming that senior journalists at the Guardian had colluded in targeting Prof Chomsky with the object of discrediting him. I believe he was right to do that. Nothing emerged in my interviews to support the idea." (Mayes, 'Open door,' December 12, 2005)

Previously, the media has simply ignored even large numbers of emails. On this occasion, even the editor of the Guardian felt compelled to respond to the huge numbers of people who had written in.

We are also beginning to receive (comparatively) positive comments form the media. The BBC's Newsnight editor Peter Barron has begun inviting us to appear, has invited our sources to appear on the programme (on our suggestion), and has even written:

"One of Medialens' less ingratiating habits is to suggest to their readers that they contact me to complain about things we've done. They're a website whose rather grand aim is to 'correct the distorted vision of the corporate media'.

"They prolifically let us know what they think of our coverage, mainly on Iraq, George Bush and the Middle East, from a Chomskyist perspective.

"In fact I rather like them. David Cromwell and David Edwards, who run the site, are unfailingly polite, their points are well-argued and sometimes they're plain right.

"For example, Newsnight hasn't done enough on the US war on insurgency in Western Iraq. The reason is we don't have a presence there because it's too dangerous and pictures and firm evidence are hard to come by. But that shouldn't be an excuse, and this week we managed to get an interview with a US Marine colonel on the front line to raise some of the points Medialens and others are concerned about."

QUESTION: Why someone who already knows s/he can't trust the corporate media should read your book?

ANSWER: This really sounds like hype, but here's the reason. We have read every one of our Media Alerts over and over again. When we took the nuggets out of the alerts, updated them, added material and mashed it all together in the book, we assumed the result would be very familiar to us - we both thought it would seem very samey and tedious to us. But when we read through the result something quite remarkable happened. The combined impact of all this concentrated, damning material and evidence was to open our eyes to just how obviously corrupt and compromised the corporate media system is. It actually opened our eyes to what we're dealing with!

This points to an interesting feature of media propaganda. It operates by a kind of mass hypnosis - when you're exposed to it day in day out, it infiltrates the way you see things; it makes even complete absurdity seem serious. The illusion is attenuated somewhat when you read an honest article or two. But when you read a really concentrated blast of powerful evidence, it seems to have a different order of effect on the mind. That's the conclusion we've come to because it was very surprising to be educated by our own book!


To know more, please visit MEDIA LENS


NOTES:

1) To know more, please read an oppressive email by an electronic lobby group’s member.



(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker, writer and journalist living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com - Find out more about him and his work at http://TheCatsDream.com

“What's in a number? Accountability”

Dear Sarah Sewall,

In What's the Story Behind 30,000 Iraqi Deaths? (By Sarah Sewall, the Washington Post, Sunday, December 18, 2005; Page B02) you write:

The Lancet study relied on a door-to-door survey of Iraqi households in 33 neighborhoods. The surveyors asked for details of deaths in the months before and after the invasion and found a significantly higher death rate after. But the approach was flawed. War is not like a pandemic; it comes in pockets. And the study itself qualified its conclusions, acknowledging that the figure could range enormously between 8,000 and 194,000.

From what you write, it seems either you didn’t read the study or you didn’t understand it. So, I won’t comment on your flawed approach.

More interestingly, your article ends with these words:

What's in a number? Accountability.

These words are very interesting indeed, considering they come from someone who served as deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration.

Considering the following:

Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" US Ambassador at the United Nations (soon to become Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." CBS - "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996

Denis Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (1997-98) said: “I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that had effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.” After thirty-four years with the United Nations, he resigned in protest over the effects of the embargo on the civilian population. (Source: The New Rulers of the World, by John Pilger, Verso, 2002)

Hans Von Sponeck, who had succeeded Denis Halliday as UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (1998-2000), resigned on February 13, 2000. He asked: “How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?” Like Halliday, he had been with the United Nations for more than thirty years. (Source: The New Rulers of the World, by John Pilger, Verso, 2002)

I would like to know if you still agree with your words: “What's in a number? Accountability.”

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

White (Phosphorous) Christmas

White (Phosphorous) Christmas
By Gabriele Zamparini (*)

“(…) the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation.” - Adolf Hitler (1)

"If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." - Joseph Goebbels (2)

Judging from our leaders and mainstream media, it seems these two gentlemen above didn’t die in vain.

A few days ago, the Chicken-Hawk-in-Chief said: “Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” (3) On 29 January 2003, at the State of the Union speech, the same Chicken-Hawk-in-Chief addressed the Congress: “And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food and medicines and supplies - and freedom.” [It followed one of the many standing ovations from the Congress’ members. Good to remember when still so many think the Congress should impeach the President. My grandma would say: If you want it done right, you have to do it yourself.]

According to “The State of Iraq: An Update”, an article published by The New York Times “A sober reading of the data argues against a rapid withdrawal, which would concede the fight to the terrorists.” (4) One wonders how many people must be murdered before (soberly) calling someone terrorist: 30,000? 100,000? 500,000? 1,000,000?

“The war in numbers: From WMD to the victims” is a collection of numbers published on 13 December 2005 by The Independent. It reads: “30,000 Estimated Iraqi civilian deaths” (5)

What’s the source of this number? Is The Independent (and the other mainstream media) accepting the numbers given by the official sources, which is to say the White House and the Pentagon? Why did most of the Western mainstream media bury the most serious study conducted on the subject? (6) This study, published on 29 October 2004 in the prestigious medical journal The Lancet (7), reads:

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. (Interpretation)

Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. (Findings)

Les Roberts, of the Center for International Emergency Disaster and Refugee Studies at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, one of the world’s top epidemiologists and lead author of the report, recently wrote:

“It is almost a year since a group of scientists from Al-Mustansirya University in Baghdad, and Columbia and Johns Hopkins Universities in the US, released a report in the medical journal The Lancet estimating that 100,000, and perhaps far more, Iraqis had died due to the US invasion. The issue of civilian deaths in Iraq and The Lancet report in particular were deemed by the group Project Censored as the second most under-reported story of 2005. (…) I thought the press saw their job as reporting information. This may indeed be the case for the coverage of auto accidents and the cost of pig-futures, but it was not the case regarding civilian deaths in Iraq.” (8)

On the same day The Independent gave those numbers, it published the leading article “The perils of planting democracy in a hostile land”. The first and the last paragraph read:

“One thousand days. This is how long British troops have been in Iraq, and still we are counting. Such an accumulation of time seemed inconceivable in the days after the invasion, when the military operation looked likely to be completed in weeks. As we now know to our cost, the ease of removing Saddam Hussein offered no preparation for the multifarious resistance that was to come. Ousting a dictator is one thing; sowing and watering the seeds of democracy where none existed is an undertaking of quite a different order.”

“It is possible that, if the security situation deteriorates further, not leaving now will come to be seen as a mistake and an ignominious retreat will follow. On balance, it is probably worth waiting in the hope that the elections usher in calmer times and serious reconstruction can begin. The only bright point in this whole sorry episode will be if we are able to plan an orderly departure and leave Iraq in a better state than we found it. Anything else will constitute a shaming defeat.” (9)

For those of you who don’t know, The Independent is considered to be an anti-war newspaper. No kidding!

Let’s see how we have been “sowing and watering the seeds of democracy”.

Never mind the British colonialism, the slaughters and the use of poison gas by the British Empire, let’s not consider the Iraq-Iran war and the US governments’ role behind that war, providing weapons, intelligence and any kind of financial help and support for the carnage to continue. Let’s just start from 1990.

The UN sanctions against Iraq, wanted by the governments of the US and the UK and imposed on 6 August 1990 (HIROSHIMA DAY) ended only with the invasion and occupation of Iraq in 2003.

In 1996, Madeleine Albright – US Ambassador at the United Nations and soon to become Secretary of State under President Clinton – said about half million children murdered by those sanctions: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." (10)

Those sanctions killed a terrifying number of innocent people. One million? Two millions? Will we ever know?

Denis Halliday, former UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (1997-98) said: “I had been instructed to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that had effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.” After thirty-four years with the United Nations, he resigned in protest over the effects of the embargo on the civilian population. (11)

Hans Von Sponeck, who had succeeded Denis Halliday as UN Assistant Secretary General and Humanitarian Coordinator for Iraq (1998-2000), resigned on February 13, 2000. He asked: “How long should the civilian population of Iraq be exposed to such punishment for something they have never done?” Like Halliday, he had been with the United Nations for more than thirty years. (12)

Remember the first Gulf War? Surgical bombings, smart missiles and a great show on TV. There were between 142,000 and 206,000 Iraqi deaths directly attributable to the Gulf War in 1991 (13)

Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, kidnappings, tortures, cluster bombs, depleted uranium, white phosphorous, Fallujah… “sowing and watering the seeds of democracy”!

The ‘big lies’, the ‘colossal untruths’, the ‘large-scale falsehoods’. When our ruthless leaders and their apologists in the media use words such as democracy, freedom and human rights just run and run fast!

Whatever the reasons Afghanistan and Iraq have been bombed and occupied, they have nothing to do with freedom, democracy and human rights. And the other big lie, the war on terror, is just a show for the western audience, a smoke screen Hitler and Goebbels would be proud.

Every time our leaders and mainstream media “tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it”, let’s “dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie”. And as Oscar Wilde wrote: "If one tells the truth, one is sure, sooner or later, to be found out."


NOTES

1) Mein Kampf, published in Germany in 1925-1926. Author: Adolf Hitler (1889 – 1945) Founder and Leader of National Socialism (Nazism), and German Dictator 1933 - 1945

2) Joseph Goebbels (1897–1945), German Propaganda Minister 1933 - 1945

3) Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper', by Doug Thompson, Capitol Hill Blue, December 9, 2005

4) The State of Iraq: An Update, by Nina Kamp, Michael O’Hanlon and Amy Unikewicz, The New York Times, December 14, 2005

5) The war in numbers: From WMD to the victims, The Independent, 13 December 2005

6) Suggested reading:

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 1, September 5, 2005

BURYING THE LANCET - PART 2, September 6, 2005

BURYING THE LANCET – Update, September 12, 2005

WATCHING HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH. Open Letter to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director Human Rights Watch, by Gabriele Zamparini, December 7, 2005

7) Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey, The Lancet, Published online October 29,2004

8) A year later - 100,000 deaths in Iraq, by Les Roberts. This op-ed was sent to me by the author.

9) Leading article: The perils of planting democracy in a hostile land, The Independent, 13 December 2005

10) Lesley Stahl on U.S. sanctions against Iraq: "We have heard that a half million children have died. I mean, that's more children than died in Hiroshima. And, you know, is the price worth it?" US Ambassador at the United Nations (soon to become Secretary of State) Madeleine Albright: "I think this is a very hard choice, but the price - we think the price is worth it." CBS - "60 Minutes", May 12, 1996

11) Source: The New Rulers of the World, by John Pilger, Verso, 2002

12) Ibidem

13) Source: U.N. 1991 the Ahtisaari report; Daponte 1993



(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker, writer and journalist living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com - Find out more about him and his work at http://TheCatsDream.com

The Guardian's Readers' Editor's strange idea of democracy

Dear Mr. Mayes,

Regarding your last piece, “Open door. The readers' editor on ... a complaint about a controversial correction” (Ian Mayes, The Guardian, Monday, December 12, 2005), there are a few questions I would like to ask. You write:

Throughout the entire period of my consideration of the complaint I, like Emma Brockes, was among the targets of an electronic lobby group, Media Lens, lobbying broadly in protest at the treatment of Prof Chomsky. Other targets included the editor of the Guardian.

What you describe as “an electronic lobby group, Media Lens, lobbying broadly in protest at the treatment of Prof Chomsky” it seems to me an open community of citizens, exercising their rights to be fully participatory in a mature democracy, demanding a correct and honest information by the mass media. Since you disagree with me, how would you describe democracy?

You write:

I did not engage with or respond to this lobby, whose members poured several hundred emails into the Guardian. I did not read more than a tiny sample of the emails directed at me. I consider organised lobbies in general to be in effect - whatever the rights or wrongs of their position - oppressive to put it mildly.

Aren’t you the Readers’ Editor at the Guardian? Aren’t you the Organization of News Ombudsmen’s President? If you “did not engage with or respond to” the Guardian’s readers writing to their editor; if you “did not read more than a tiny sample of the emails directed” by the Guardian’s readers to their editor; if you consider your readers “oppressive to put it mildly” may I ask you what you consider to be your job?

You write:

In the case of Media Lens, those who respond to their Media Alerts are asked to be polite. They do not all manage to follow that advice. I also consider that it is unreasonable to expect me to read the contents of any email bombardment while dealing with a complaint from the principal person involved.

I can’t speak for others, but I think to have always been more than polite, every time I wrote to you. Still, I have never received any answer from you. Why? I hope you don’t consider being frank and voicing dissent a sign of impoliteness. About your second point here, with all the respect, I completely disagree with you. I do NOT consider “unreasonable to expect [you] to read the contents” of your readers’ emails. Again, isn’t this your job?

You write:

The new complaint, which has prompted this column, is concerned with what Noam Chomsky, and Diana Johnstone, who was also referred to in the Chomsky interview and in the correction, do or do not believe with respect to the events at Srebrenica and to the description of the massacre itself. It comes in the form of a letter to me of about 4,500 words (an estimate) signed by three people: David Aaronovitch, Francis Wheen and Oliver Kamm. All three write for other publications. Oliver Kamm in addition runs a lively website.

So, let me understand here. You “did not engage with or respond to (...) several hundred emails”. You “did not read more than a tiny sample” of these emails. You “consider [these emails] to be in effect (...) oppressive to put it mildly”. But a letter written by three people “has prompted this column”. Does the Guardian’s Readers’ Editor apply a double standard to his readers?

I hope you won’t find this email too “oppressive” and I look forward to reading the prompt reply from my editor.

Thank you.

Kind regards,

Gabriele Zamparini

PS I also “write for other publications” and “in addition [I run] a lively website”.

Watching Human Rights Watch - Open Letter to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director Human Rights Watch

Watching Human Rights Watch
Open Letter to Kenneth Roth, Executive Director Human Rights Watch
By Gabriele Zamparini (*)

Dear Mr. Kenneth Roth, Executive Director Human Rights Watch

On December 2, 2005 the New York Times published an article with the title “Rights Group Lists 26 It Says U.S. Is Holding in Secret Abroad”. The article quotes Marc Garlasco, Senior Military Analyst at Human Rights Watch, saying:

"One thing I want to make clear is we are talking about some really bad guys," Mr. Garlasco said. "These are criminals who need to be brought to justice. One of our main problems with the U.S. is that justice is not being served by having these people held incognito.”

Mr. Garlasco said, "Our concern is that if illegal methods such as torture are being used against them," trials may "either be impossible or questionable under international standards of jurisprudence." (1)

On December 4, 2005 I wrote to Mr. Garlasco, asking:

1) did the New York Times quote you correctly?
2) if not, will you ask for a formal correction to the NYT?
3) if yes, don’t you think your words are quite bizarre for a HRW’s representative? Did we get to the point that even Human Rights Watch doesn’t care for the presumption of innocence? Is that really HRW’s concern about torture?

In my e-mail I also wrote:

I had the opportunity to interview HRW’s Reed Brody and Hanny Megally just a few years ago. Also because of those interviews I have great esteem and respect for the work of your organization. I fear that your words – as reported by the New York Times’ article – will damage HRW’s image and the trust many people have for its work. (2)

Since I haven’t received any answer, I have now decided to write you an open letter to reiterate my questions and also to ask you if someone who “recommended thousands of aimpoints on hundreds of targets during operations in Iraq and Serbia [and who] also participated in over 50 interrogations as a subject matter expert” fits a senior position at Human Rights Watch.

Mr. Garlasco’s biography reads:

Before coming to HRW, Marc spent seven years in the Pentagon as a senior intelligence analyst covering Iraq. His last position there was chief of high-value targeting during the Iraq War in 2003. Marc was on the Operation Desert Fox (Iraq) Battle Damage Assessment team in 1998, led a Pentagon Battle Damage Assessment team to Kosovo in 1999, and recommended thousands of aimpoints on hundreds of targets during operations in Iraq and Serbia. He also participated in over 50 interrogations as a subject matter expert. (3)

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, Mr. Garlasco had also an interesting role in damaging a study “published in The Lancet, a prestigious British medical journal, concluding that about 100,000 civilians had been killed in Iraq since it was invaded by a United States-led coalition in March 2003.” (4) The Chronicle of Higher Education writes:

The Washington Post, perhaps most damagingly to the study's reputation, quoted Marc E. Garlasco, a senior military analyst at Human Rights Watch, as saying, "These numbers seem to be inflated."

Mr. Garlasco says now that he hadn't read the paper at the time and calls his quote in the Post "really unfortunate." He says he told the reporter, "I haven't read it. I haven't seen it. I don't know anything about it, so I shouldn't comment on it." But, Mr. Garlasco continues, "Like any good journalist, he got me to."

Mr. Garlasco says he misunderstood the reporter's description of the paper's results. (5)

Marc Garlasco, Senior Military Analyst at Human Rights Watch had also an interesting role in a BBC's Editorial Complaints Unit’s investigation following a series of Media Lens’ Alerts on the BBC’s reporting on Fallujah. (6) The BBC reports

“In its verdict that the NewsWatch report was not misleading, the Editorial Complaints Unit - which investigates complaints independently of journalists - cited the evidence given to it by the HRW spokesman:

“I find nothing inaccurate in what Paul stated. I think the issue is with the choice of the word "investigation". As Paul noted, we did not have a full-fledged investigation with testimony from eye-witnesses, etc.

What we did have, and I communicated to him [BBC’s defence correspondent Paul Wood, who was embedded with the US marines in Falluja at the time] was an investigation more on the lines of what I would term an inquiry. We had folks try to get into Falluja but were unable, and we had folks talk to people in Baghdad who had left Falluja.

But the information was not of the quality for us to do any reporting. Beyond that, we made inquiries to the US Government, and other press. To the best of our knowledge no banned weapons were used during either battle of Falluja.” (7)

Dear Mr. Roth, I would kindly ask you to re-read this last paragraph:

“But the information was not of the quality for us to do any reporting. Beyond that, we made inquiries to the US Government, and other press. To the best of our knowledge no banned weapons were used during either battle of Falluja.”

Why the best of Human Rights Watch’s knowledge didn’t include:

1) Some artillery guns fired white phosphorous rounds that create a screen of fire that cannot be extinguished with water. Insurgents reported being attacked with a substance that melted their skin. (U.S. Forces Battle Into Heart of Fallujah, by Jackie Spinner, Karl Vick and Omar Fekeiki, Washington Post, November 10, 2004)

2) The US occupation troops are gassing resistance fighters and confronting them with internationally-banned chemical weapons,” resistance sources told Al-Quds Press Wednesday, November 10. (US Troops Reportedly Gassing Fallujah, Islam OnLine, November 10, 2004)

3) The U.S. military has used poison gas and other non-conventional weapons against civilians in Fallujah, eyewitnesses report. ('Unusual Weapons' Used in Fallujah, by Dahr Jamail, November 26, 2004)

4) “I saw cluster bombs everywhere, and so many bodies that were burned, dead with no bullets in them. So they definitely used fire weapons, especially in Julan district.” (An Eyewitness Account of Fallujah, by Dahr Jamail, December 16, 2004)

5) White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. (…) We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. ("The Fight for Fallujah," a "memorandum for record" by Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight, published in the March-April 2005 issue of the US Army's Field Artillery magazine)

6) “Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused. (…)"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. "Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.” (Violence Subsides for Marines in Fallujah, by Darrin Mortenson, North County Times, Saturday, April 10, 2004)

I am not making any charge. I am just asking questions. Is it still possible to ask questions in these dark times of preemptive wars? After embedded journalists, shall we have embedded human rights organizations? Shouldn’t Caesar's wife be above suspicion?

Kind regards,

Gabriele Zamparini


NOTES:

1) Rights Group Lists 26 It Says U.S. Is Holding in Secret Abroad, by IAN FISHER, The New York Times, December 2, 2005

2) Questions for Human Rights Watch, Gabriele Zamparini’s e-mail to Marc Garlasco, Senior Military Analyst HRW and Kenneth Roth, Executive Director HRW

3) Bio of Human Rights Watch's Mark Garlasco, Mother Jones, October 2, 2005

4) Lost Count. Researchers rushed a rigorous study of Iraqi civilian casualties into print. Is that why it was dismissed as pure politics? by Lila Guterman, The Chronicle of Higher Education, February 4, 2005

5) ibidem

6) Rapid Response Media Alert: Doubt Cast On BBC Claims Regarding Fallujah, Media Lens, April 18, 2005

7) NewsWatch complaint not upheld, NewsWatch, BBC News, 3 August 2005

(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker, writer and journalist living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com - Find out more about him and his work at http://TheCatsDream.com

Release Muhsin al-Khafaji - Close the US/UK prison camps in Iraq

Dear friends,

It's been said that saving a single life is saving the whole humanity. Please, keep this in mind when you read the following appeal.

Thank you.

Gabriele Zamparini


Release Muhsin al-Khafaji - Close the US/UK prison camps in Iraq

Who is Muhsin al-Khafaji?

- Born in Iraq, 1950 in Nasiriyah

- His novel “Smell the blood on the stones of the mountains” won a literary prize, and he also received first prize for the best collection of short stories in 2000

- Translated numerous short stories into English and other languages

- Head of the Writers’ Union in Nasiriyah in 1992

- Imprisoned after the popular revolt of 1991

- Worked as an interpreter for Japanese reporters during second Gulf War

For more than two years, Iraqi writer Muhsin al-Khafaji has been held without charge or trial in the US-run prison, Camp Bucca in southern Iraq. Family and friends say he is in poor health, and fear that he will not survive the notoriously bad conditions in the prison camp.

When last visited by friends in January 2004, he told them that he had no idea why he had been arrested. During his last interrogation in September 2003 he signed a statement provided by the camp authorities, promising not to sue them for damages after his release.

According to Amnesty International around 9,000 detainees are held at Camp Bucca. Two Palestinian students, who were released from the camp in August 2005 told the human rights watchdog that they suffered humiliation and torture at Camp Bucca including being forced to stand for hours in the heat of the sun. According to the Washington Post, the average length of incarceration at the Camp is one year. A recent report by the United Nations mission in Iraq expressed deep concern that nearly 12,000 Iraqis are being held by the occupying forces.

Human rights groups across the Arab world are calling for the release of Muhsin al-Khafaji and for the closure of the occupiers’ prison camps in Iraq.

What you can do to help:

Write letters of protest

Prime Minister, Republic of Iraq
c/o HE Dr Salah al Shaikhly
Iraqi Embassy
169 Knightsbridge, London
SW7 1DW
Fax: + 44 (0) 20 7589 3356
Email: lonemb@iraqmofa.net

and to:

Donald Rumsfeld
Secretary of Defense
Office of the Secretary
The Pentagon
Washington
DC 20301
USA
Fax: +1 703 697 8339
Click here to send appeals via the US Department of Defense website

Send a copy to Tony Blair’s Special Envoy to Iraq
Ann Clwyd MP
Prime Ministers’ Special Envoy to Iraq on Human Rights
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
Email: clwyda@parliament.uk

Pass a resolution in your trade union branch or community group:

- condemning the detention of Muhsin al-Khafaji and thousands of other Iraqis without charge or trial by the occupying forces;

- calling on the US and UK governments to release them without delay.

For more information: release_muhsinallkhafaji@yahoo.co.uk

QUESTIONS FOR HUMAN RIGHTS WATCH

Dear Marc Garlasco, Senior Military Analyst
C/C Dear Kenneth Roth, Executive Director

In the New York Times' article "Rights Group Lists 26 It Says U.S. Is Holding in Secret Abroad" by Ian Fisher, I read:

"One thing I want to make clear is we are talking about some really bad guys," Mr. Garlasco said. "These are criminals who need to be brought to justice. One of our main problems with the U.S. is that justice is not being served by having these people held incognito."

I would like to ask you:

1) did the New York Times quote you correctly?
2) if not, will you ask for a formal correction to the NYT?
3) if yes, don’t you think your words are quite bizarre for a HRW’s representative? Did we get to the point that even Human Rights Watch doesn’t care for the presumption of innocence?

In the article, I also read:

Mr. Garlasco said, "Our concern is that if illegal methods such as torture are being used against them," trials may "either be impossible or questionable under international standards of jurisprudence."

Again, I would like to ask you:

1) did the New York Times quote you correctly?
2) if not, will you ask for a formal correction to the NYT?
3) if yes, don’t you think your words are quite bizarre for a HRW’s representative? Is that really HRW’s concern about torture?

I had the opportunity to interview HRW’s Reed Brody and Hanny Megally just a few years ago. Also because of those interviews I have great esteem and respect for the work of your organization. I fear that your words – as reported by the New York Times’ article – will damage HRW’s image and the trust many people have for its work.

Thank you for your attention.

Kind regards,
Gabriele Zamparini

Paul Wood, my hero!

My dear and brave Paul Wood,

In your last fatigue, you write:

“Still, one unpublished estimate circulating among the US marines is that 30,000 insurgents have been killed since the coalition came to Iraq in 2003.

By that measure of bloody attrition, the coalition is winning.”

(US boosts anti-rebel offensive, By Paul Wood, BBC defence correspondent, Friday, 2 December 2005)

How beautifully you master the words “since the coalition came to Iraq in 2003”.

How fascinating your interpretation, ‘more killing more winning’!

When I saw you on TV a few days ago, I was in ecstasy when you referred to the use of white phosphorous in Fallujah as “a public relations disaster for the US”. And you didn’t let the facts interfere with your work. You repeated what has become a milestone in war journalism:

"But I repeat the point made by my editors, over many weeks of total access to the military operation, at all levels, we did not see banned weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed. We cannot therefore report their use."

I really love a man of his word. Bravo!

I must confess, I have a weakness for you. Every time I see you on TV, so confident, brave and strong, I ask myself: Why doesn’t he wear a military uniform?

With endless admiration,
Gabriele Zamparini

The Face of War

The Face of War
By Gabriele Zamparini (*)

It is my conviction that killing under the cloak of war is nothing but an act of murder. - Albert Einstein

I get the title for this article from Dahr Jamail’s website. (1) “The Face of War” is a collection of 82 images embedded journalists in the mainstream media should be forced to watch, before deciding to work for the Pentagon.

A few days ago, the BBC News website ran an article on the 60th anniversary of the Nuremberg trials. The article reads:

“BBC diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus says the Nuremberg trials set an important legal precedent, which laid the ground for subsequent international war crimes prosecutions and the International Criminal Court. (...) The defendants were charged with the then-new offences that have since become fixed in international law, including waging a war of aggression, war crimes and crimes against humanity. (...) The Nuremburg cases were also the first time government leaders were held personally responsible for their actions during war. They mostly claimed that they had not known, or were not responsible for what happened.” (2)

The BBC is right. In 1946 those judges wrote:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." - Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals - Nuremberg, Germany 1946

Kofi Annan echoed these words in 2004:

“The United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan has told the BBC the US-led invasion of Iraq was an illegal act that contravened the UN charter.” (3)

In the words of the Nuremberg trials, “the supreme international crime.“

Through silence and lies, most of the Western mainstream media have been cooperating with the “US-led invasion of Iraq”, and therefore they are directly responsible for “an illegal act that contravened the UN charter” or, to use the Nuremberg trials’ words, “the supreme international crime.“

Mainstream media keep lying till to the point to write, as the BBC did a few days ago, outrageous pornography:

“Washington is not a signatory to any treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus against civilians.” (4)

As Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers said:

“The comment ‘Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance [WP] against civilians.’ assumes that therefore civilians may be targeted by WP weapons. This is an outrageous assumption because civilians may NEVER be the target of military operations -- whether using bows and arrows or white phosphorous, or any other weapon.” (5)

On the other side of the Atlantic, All The News That’s Fit To Print published an article where the only honest thing was the date. In “US Is Slow To Respond To Phosphorous Charges” Scott Shane writes:

“Italian public television showed a documentary renewing persistent charges that the United States had used white phosphorus rounds, incendiary munitions that the film incorrectly called chemical weapons, against Iraqis in Falluja last year.” (6)

Five days earlier, Professor Paul Rodgers, of the University of Bradford's department of peace studies, had told the BBC:

"It is not counted under the chemical weapons convention in its normal use but, although it is a matter of legal niceties, it probably does fall into the category of chemical weapons if it is used for this kind of purpose directly against people." (7)

Let alone that a US Department of Defense’s de-classified report I brought to the attention of the media on November 21, calls WP “CHEMICAL WEAPONS”. (8)

In his NYT’s article (sic!), Scott Shane also writes:

“Firsthand accounts by American officers in two military journals note that white phosphorus munitions had been aimed directly at insurgents in Falluja to flush them out. War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles.” (9)

“War critics and journalists soon discovered those articles”?

On November 8, 2005, after reading my article “EXCLUSIVE: the BBC is WRONG!!! Fallujah, the RAI NEWS 24 documentary and my e-mail exchange with the BBC” (10) Mark Kraft of insomnia.livejournal.com sent me two pieces of information:

1) "The Fight for Fallujah," a "memorandum for record" by Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight, published in the March-April 2005 issue of the US Army's Field Artillery magazine.

2) Darrin Mortenson’s "Violence Subsides for Marines in Fallujah," published in the North County Times, on 10 April 2004.

Wednesday morning, November 9, 2005 I wrote “BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà” (11) and I sent my article to many on-line publications and through my e-newsletter which also goes to many journalists working in the mainstream media.

The Guardian (12) here in London picked up the story on Tuesday, November 15, 2005 ONLY AFTER the US State Department on November 10, 2005 had been forced to issue a “NOTE” admitting that WP was indeed used in Fallujah as a weapon.

If we had to rely on the ‘respectable’ media, we would still be talking about fairy tales:

“ ‘It's discredited the American military without any basis in fact,’ said John E. Pike, an expert on weapons who runs GlobalSecurity.org, an independent clearinghouse for military information. (…) ‘The story most people around the world have is that the Americans are up to their old tricks - committing atrocities and lying about it,’ Mr. Pike said. ‘And that's completely incorrect.’ ” (13)

On December 3, 2002, I interviewed Reed Brody for my documentary XXI CENTURY. Reed Brody is a veteran human rights defender and special counsel with Human Rights Watch in New York. He told me:

“You know, war is no longer two armies fighting it out from trench to trench. In modern wars unfortunately 90 percent of the casualties are civilians. We see that in civil wars, but we also see it in international wars - so any war is going to have a devastating impact on civilian populations.” (14)

In those same days, too many were beating the drums for war. It wasn’t just Bush, Blair and the psychopaths of the Project for the New American Century. While millions of people all over the world were demonstrating and organizing to stop this slaughter, the “supreme international crime” was being prepared by the corporate media months before the invasion officially started. And it wasn’t just the FOX News and the other Murdoch’s gems of journalism. The “liberal” (sic!) media were adding their candid voice, singing the ‘liberation of the oppressed Iraqis’. So full of nobility!

We must remember those days, now that many among these "liberal-hawks" have become running mice abandoning the sinking boat.

But careful to the big rats!

In the United States, a country where people fight every day against the occupation of their land by the Business Party that controls the political-economical system through its two factions, the big names are running in support of the Bush junta.

[If the United States pulled out now] "Sunni Iraq would become the very terrorist hotbed they were accused of being before." said former President Clinton (15)

The day after, his wife and Sen. Clinton added ''I think that [an immediate troop pullout from Iraq] would cause more problems for us in America'' (16)

Shameless promotion. There is a beautiful picture at page 143 of my book ‘American Voices of Dissent’. It was taken in Washington, DC on October 26, 2002. Next to a smiling face of Ms Clinton, the words “voted yes to WAR”. Underneath, the WANTED sign reads: WARMONGERING AND COWARDICE.


NOTES:

(1) Dahr Jamail’s website

(2) “Germany marks Nuremberg tribunals”, BBC News website, Sunday, 20 November 2005

(3) “Iraq war illegal, says Annan”, BBC News website, Thursday, 16 September, 2004

(4) Shameless Bbc: When Misinformation Means War Crimes. Exclusive interview with Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers By Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog, Thursday, November 17, 2005

(5) See Note 4

(6) Us Is Slow To Respond To Phosphorous Charges, By Scott Shane, The New York Times, November 21, 2005

(7) Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons, BBC News, 16 November 2005

(8) A De-Classified Report from the US Department of Defense calls WP “CHEMICAL WEAPONS” by Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog

(9) See Note CC

(10) EXCLUSIVE: the BBC is WRONG!!! Fallujah, the RAI NEWS 24 documentary and my e-mail exchange with the BBC, by Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog

(11) BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà, by Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog

(12) The US used chemical weapons in Iraq - and then lied about it, by George Monbiot, The Guardian, Tuesday November 15, 2005

(13) See Note 6

(14) XXI CENTURY, PEACE! and AMERICAN VOICES OF DISSENT, by Gabriele Zamparini and Lorenzo Meccoli - The Cat's Dream

(15) Bill Clinton Says U.S. Must Stay In Iraq, By Liz Anderson, The Journal News, November 21, 2005

(16) Sen. Clinton: Immediate Iraq Exit ‘Mistake’, by the AP, November 22, 2005


(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker, writer and journalist living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com - Find out more about him and his work at http://TheCatsDream.com

The mysterious case of white phosphorous. Or: how the BBC learned to stop worrying and love the bomb

The mysterious case of white phosphorous
Or: how the BBC learned to stop worrying and love the bomb
by Gabriele Zamparini (*)

“There is a great deal of misinformation feeding on itself about U.S. forces allegedly using "outlawed" weapons in Fallujah. The facts are that U.S. forces are not using any illegal weapons in Fallujah or anywhere else in Iraq.” – U.S. Department of State, 9 December 2004 (1)

“But I repeat the point made by my editors, over many weeks of total access to the military operation, at all levels, we did not see banned weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed. We cannot therefore report their use.” - Helen Boaden, Director of BBC News, 14 April 2005 (2)

INTRODUCTION

On November 10, 2005, the U.S. Department of State added the following note to its own article Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah? originally published on December 9, 2004 on its own website USINFO:

[November 10, 2005 note: We have learned that some of the information we were provided in the above paragraph is incorrect. White phosphorous shells, which produce smoke, were used in Fallujah not for illumination but for screening purposes, i.e., obscuring troop movements and, according to an article, “The Fight for Fallujah” in the March-April 2005 issue of Field Artillery magazine, "as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes …." The article states that U.S. forces used white phosphorous rounds to flush out enemy fighters so that they could then be killed with high explosive rounds.] (3)

This "note," though very cleverly packaged, is much more revealing than on first reading.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

On Tuesday morning, November 8, 2005, the BBC NEWS website published an article with the title US 'used chemical arms' in Iraq. This was after RAI NEWS 24 broadcast the documentary “Fallujah. La strage nascosta” (Fallujah. The Concealed Massacre) on the same morning, depicting the use of white phosphorous on civilians in Fallujah last year.

During that morning, the same article changed several times. Probably the most meaningful change was in the title. From US 'used chemical arms' in Iraq to US 'uses incendiary arms' in Iraq.

When asked about the reason for such a change, the BBC editor e-mailed me: “A little research has indicated that White Phosphorous is not a chemical weapon, nor is the US a signatory to conventions restricting its use.” (4)

The BBC NEWS’ article now reads: “Rai says this amounts to the illegal use of chemical arms, though such bombs are considered incendiary devices”.

Also, in the same e-mail I received from the BBC NEWS’ editor, the RAI documentary was described as “factually inaccurate and misleading”.

I replied to the BBC, sending them the words of Peter Kaiser (Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons): “Any chemical that is used against humans or against animals that causes harm or death through the toxic properties of the chemical, ARE considered chemical weapons and as long as the purpose is to cause harm - that is prohibited behaviour.” (5)

I didn’t receive any reply from the BBC. The same day I wrote “Fallujah, the RAI NEWS 24 documentary and my e-mail exchange with the BBC” (6)

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

On Wednesday morning, November 9, 2005, I wrote “BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà”. (7) I wanted to show that the BBC article was "factually inaccurate and misleading", to use the very same words used by the BBC against the RAI documentary, giving proof that what the US Government had said and written about the use of white phosphorus is false.

The BBC article reported that: “The US military admits using the weapon in Iraq to illuminate battlefields. But US military officials deny using it in built-up areas.” In a later version, the BBC rephrased the article to: “The US military denies [that White Phosphorus was used in built-up areas] but admits using white phosphorus bombs in Iraq to illuminate battlefields.” That’s the official story given by the US Government at USINFO (8)

In "BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà" I included evidence that proves that the official story is false: "The Fight for Fallujah", a "memorandum for record" by Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight, published in the March-April 2005 issue of the US Army's Field Artillery magazine. The point 9 of the memorandum reads:

9. Munitions. The munitions we brought to this fight were 155-mm highexplosive (HE) M107 (short-range) and M795 (long-range) rounds, illumination and white phosphorous (WP, M110 and M825), with point-detonating (PD), delay, time and variable-time (VT) fuzes. (…) White Phosphorous. WP proved to be an effective and versatile munition. We used it for screening missions at two breeches and, later in the fight, as a potent psychological weapon against the insurgents in trench lines and spider holes when we could not get effects on them with HE. We fired “shake and bake” missions at the insurgents, using WP to flush them out and HE to take them out. (…) We used improved WP for screening missions when HC smoke would have been more effective and saved our WP for lethal missions. (…) (9)

Also in the same article, I reported what Darrin Mortenson, a North County Times journalist embedded in the Camp Pendleton Marines, wrote back in April 2004 about "shake and bake" missions:

“Bogert is a mortar team leader who directed his men to fire round after round of high explosives and white phosphorus charges into the city Friday and Saturday, never knowing what the targets were or what damage the resulting explosions caused. (…)"Gun up!" Millikin yelled when they finished a few seconds later, grabbing a white phosphorus round from a nearby ammo can and holding it over the tube. "Fire!" Bogert yelled, as Millikin dropped it. The boom kicked dust around the pit as they ran through the drill again and again, sending a mixture of burning white phosphorus and high explosives they call "shake 'n' bake" into a cluster of buildings where insurgents have been spotted all week.” (10)

Thursday, November 10, 2005

On November 10, 2005 - the day after my article came out on a number of websites around the globe - the U.S. Department of State published the "note" that I reproduced in the introduction. In the note, however, there is no mention of interesting details from "The Fight for Fallujah" memorandum, such as the "shake and bake" missions.

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

On Tuesday, November 15, 2005 The Independent published a letter by Mr. Robert H. Tuttle, US Ambassador to the UK. In the letter, Mr. Tuttle writes:

“US forces participating in Operation Iraqi Freedom continue to use appropriate lawful, conventional weapons against legitimate targets. US forces do not use napalm or white phosphorus as weapons.”

Did the Ambassador ignore what his employer, the US State Department, had been forced to admit five days earlier?

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

On Wednesday, November 16, 2005, the BBC News website ran an article with the title “Iraq probes US phosphorus weapons”. The BBC writes:

“Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance [white phosphorus] against civilians.”

On the same day, Wednesday, November 16, 2005, the BBC News website, published a special page “Q&A: White phosphorus”. Under the title “The BBC News website looks at the facts behind the row”, the BBC writes:

“Washington is not a signatory to any treaty restricting the use of white phosphorus against civilians.”

Thursday, November 17, 2005

On Thursday, November 17, 2005, I published “Shameless BBC: When Misinformation Means War Crimes”, an exclusive interview with Karen Parker, Chief Counsel of the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers, based in San Francisco. In this interview, Ms. Parker says:

The comment “Washington is not a signatory to an international treaty restricting the use of the substance [WP] against civilians.” assumes that therefore civilians may be targeted by WP weapons. This is an outrageous assumption because civilians may NEVER be the target of military operations -- whether using bows and arrows or white phosphorous, or any other weapon. (11)

Monday, November 21, 2005

On Monday, November 21, 2005, I discovered and published on my blog and on a number of other on-line publications a de-classified report from the US Department of Defense. The report, dated April 1991 and titled "Possible use of phosphorus chemical" reads:

(…) DURING THE BRUTAL CRACKDOWN THAT FOLLOWED THE KURDISH UPRISING, IRAQI FORCES LOYAL TO PRESIDENT SADDAM ((HUSSEIN)) MAY HAVE POSSIBLY USED WHITE PHOSPHOROUS (WP) CHEMICAL WEAPONS AGAINST KURDISH REBELS AND THE POPULACE IN ERBIL (…) (12)

In other words, the Pentagon considers the white phosphorous an illegal chemical weapon.

Epilogue

I'd like to end on the same note as I losed "BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà".

The silence and the lies of the mainstream media have resulted in war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Iraq war has started with lies -- and lies have allowed it to continue. We shall never forget the words used at the Nazi criminals' trials:

"To initiate a war of aggression, therefore, is not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." - Judgment of the International Military Tribunal for the Trial of German Major War Criminals - Nuremberg, Germany 1946

Now, it’s up to us…

Notes

1) Did the U.S. Use "Illegal" Weapons in Fallujah? Media allegations claim the U.S. used outlawed weapons during combat in Iraq, U.S. Department of State, 9 December 2004 – 27 January 2005 (last update 10 November 2005)

2) Did BBC ignore weapons claim?, NewsWatch, BBC News, Thursday, 14 April, 2005

3) See note 1

4) You can read the entire e-mail correspondence between the BBC NEWS website editor and Gabriele Zamparini in “Fallujah, the RAI NEWS 24 documentary and my e-mail exchange with the BBC”, by Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog

5) See note 4

6) See note 4

7) BBC and Fallujah: War Crimes, Lies and Omertà by Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog. The article was published by Global Research, Uruknet, US Labor Against the War, Global Echo, Indymedia and many other on-line outlets. At the same time I distributed the same article through my e-newsletter which goes to thousands of people, organizations and news outlets around the world. [Note: On November 8, 2005, after reading my article “EXCLUSIVE: the BBC is WRONG!!! Fallujah, the RAI NEWS 24 documentary and my e-mail exchange with the BBC” (See Note 4) Mark Kraft of insomnia.livejournal.com sent me two pieces of information:
a) "The Fight for Fallujah," a "memorandum for record" by Captain James T. Cobb, First Lieutenant Christopher A. LaCour, and Sergeant First Class William H. Hight, published in the March-April 2005 issue of the US Army's Field Artillery magazine.
b) Darrin Mortenson’s "Violence Subsides for Marines in Fallujah," published in the North County Times, on 10 April 2004.]

8) See note 1

9) See note 7

10) Violence Subsides for Marines in Fallujah, by Darrin Mortenson, North County Times, Saturday, April 10, 2004 (Staff writer Darrin Mortenson and staff photographer Hayne Palmour are reporting from Iraq, where they are with Camp Pendleton Marines.)

11) Shameless Bbc: When Misinformation Means War Crimes. Exclusive Interview With Karen Parker, Chief Counsel Of The Association Of Humanitarian Lawyers By Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog

12) A De-Classified Report from the US Department of Defense calls WP “CHEMICAL WEAPONS” by Gabriele Zamparini, The Cat’s Blog


(*) Gabriele Zamparini is an independent filmmaker and freelance writer living in London. He's the producer and director of the documentaries XXI CENTURY and The Peace! DVD and author of American Voices of Dissent (Paradigm Publishers). He can be reached at info@thecatsdream.com - More about him and his work on http://TheCatsDream.com