Posted from the U.S.
Since I first posted the story, "Do US Troops Target Journalists in Iraq?" last week from the WEF 2005 in Davos, there has been a fast growing interest in what really is a bundle of interconnected, complex issues.
I was very glad to see the post "Eason Jordan clarifies comments" by Rebecca MacKinnon. Eason's voice in this discussion is a very important one, and it should be heard. But I would like to point out that the substance of the issues raised here, as well as the posts by readers in response to the original article, go well beyond Eason. I am still disturbed. I understand the tough position Eason is in. He is the head of a major news organization and he has corporate and managerial responsibilities. But I felt that he was pushing at broader ethical and moral issues that perhaps go well beyond the scope of his current job. One reader, Ken Hechtman, posted a response with some data from the Reporters Without Borders website (http://www.rsf.org/special_iraq_en.php3). Other readers, including some soldiers, provide a voice from the field which is chilling. I am finding it harder and harder to understand the truth on this subject. I have, and likely only can, scratch at the surface here, but there appears to be some depth and complexity to what really is a tangled web of issues that may be even more frightening when the light of day shines upon it.
I would like to point out Rebecca's courage on this issue. My views and posts are unexpected by the mainstream media, and I have been unknown in that world. The free voices coming from the blog world are a new, uncontrolled force of change in the news world. I am already getting a flood of e-mails, requests to be on various media outlets, and pressure from certain powers that be. Clearly a nerve has been hit. However, Rebecca comes from this world. Eason was a former colleague and superior. But she heard what I heard - all of us in the room did. But few have had the courage to stand up and say something. It would be nice to hear from some of the major world leaders who were in the room with us.
This topic is of significant U.S. and global importance. It digs into the heart of the freedom of the press, corporate influence, and the fabric of democracy. There is not a real solid middle ground here. Do our media and political leaders really want the us to see the truth on a subject like this? Has a veil of influence been pierced?
Here are the issues as I see them:
(1) What really did happen in Iraq to both the U.S. and foreign journalists killed while trying to cover the war? The posts by the readers, in particular a few from soldiers themselves, make this question even more compelling. And what is going to happen to journalists covering Iraq going forward? How does the truth ever become fully revealed and made public? Does the U.N. need to investigate what happened? Is there a major media organization reputable enough to present accurate information on a question which by definition here involves the major media?
(2) What is the responsibility of the media, and of media chiefs in particular (such as Eason) when it comes to how the news is shaped (or not shaped) to meet the needs of their audience? Is the news a business that needs to market to their customers what they want to hear and see, or is there a higher set of ethical and moral responsibilities that come along with the business of news? What is interesting in this case is that I do believe that the exact, objective facts are available with respect to what was said. This particular discussion at the WEF 2005 was videotaped (hopefully it is in a complete and unedited form). The debate about exactly what was said is easily resolved if an accurate transcript of the tape, or the tape itself, can be produced and made public. This kind of transparency lends itself well to global issues where subjectivity can taint any side of a topic like this. It is possible in this case that the subjectivity on one part of this issue can be removed entirely (with the complete videotape and transcript of the discussion).
(3) What is the responsibility of those in major leadership positions when confronted with such issues? In the room with us were powerful men and women, including high ranking politicians, who could follow up in a serious and meaningful way. Where are those voices and where is the followup? This topic should not be buried away in the closet. Is what Eason said the problem, or should we be more frightened at the prospect of journalists being targeted and killed by U.S. soldiers. "I see no problem if the US snipers take them out" was a comment from one reader, as well as "If they chose to take the part of the Baathists and Al kayda (sic), and say, 'embed' themselves among them, they will be killed." At a minimum the data and confusion calls for at least someone of the stature of a U.S. Senator or Congressman to step in now and lead a robust investigation.
(4) The role of the individual in society. In this debate and discussion I made the decision to say something - to speak out. That decision has sparked a lot of things, including some intense pressures coming from a lot of sides. But I now feel an obligation myself to not give in to any side, but to ask for, in fact to demand, an accounting of the truth.
The ability of blogs such as this one to influence and reach the mainstream media is a relatively new mode of the expression of free speech - truly free speech. The balance of power is being disrupted because the corporate media can no longer strongly control what a wide audience sees or hears. We need to continue this reclaiming of the freedom of speech away from corporate media, where revenues and market share will always balance with objectivity - a business is a business and has its own internal logic of building shareholder value. Voices who care primarily about the ethical and moral considerations of an issue are needed if the world is to become transparent and accountable.
Is this the Boston Tea Party of major media? Maybe in a small way. Yes, I am asking some seriously difficult questions, but they do need answers. Is it wrong to ask for the accountability of major news media and their leadership? Aren't we also all disturbed at the prospect of Eason being correct about the targeting of journalists, including those journalists now in Iraq, or on their way there? If I were going to cover the news in Iraq, I would have no idea what to think or expect at this point.
As a techie, I like to see problems solved. Here are some specific actions that should happen:
* Independant, objective, and respected investigation into this topic in a timely way (now, not years from now).
* Disclosure of what is found to the global public.
* Better protections and neutrality status for journalists, subject to harsh, Geneva style accountability if violated.
* More voices should come forward now. The voices of the soldiers in Iraq, as well as of journalists on the ground, need to come out. Let us know in your own words, unfiltered, what has happened, and what is happening. Have courage.
Note: All of the views that I have, and will be expressing in these blogs are my own personal views, and not those of any organizations that I am affiliated with.
-R
OK, Rony, I'll bite on your call for investigation. Here's what I found.
Eason Jordan made comments at the WEF in Davos about the US military targetting and killing 12 journalists. I use Reporters without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontiers (RSF)in French) to investigate his claims. On its homepage RSF says 46 reporters and 'media assistants' have been killed in Iraq since the start of fighting. 31 Journalists, 15 media assitants. They link to a list of names which links to a short blurb on each of the deceased reporters. They do not have blurbs for the assistants, but I tried to piece together what I could.
CNN's Eason Jordan said 12 dead journalists had been 'targetted' by the US military. I tried to find them. With the widest possible definition of 'suspicious' I came up with a list that happened to be 13. I am not saying these necessarily include the 12 Jordan was talking about. I see one case that is in my judgement worth investigating. To use this data to arrive at the US military targetting 12 journalists requires both extreme anti-American bias and very kooky conspiracy theory explanations.
I list those I consider possibly suspicious first. It includes the date, name and RSF blurb followed by (my comments in parenthesis)
Possibly suspicious:
01.11.2004 - Dhia Najim, Reuters
Dhia Najim, an Iraqi freelance cameraman working for the news agency Reuters was shot dead in disputed circumstances on 1st November 2004 in the town of Ramadi, west of Baghdad.
A US army communique said that Najim, 47, was filming clashes between US marines and Iraqi rebels in the Andulus district of Ramadi when he was shot in the neck. The US military authorities said they had looked at the footage he had taken and claimed that it showed rebels preparing to attack coalition forces.
Reuters said it had seen video footage of Najim's death. The agency, which did not identify the source of the footage, said it indicated that he was killed by a sniper shot without any signs of fighting going on at the time.
A Reuters dispatch also noted that press photographs taken on 31 October showed US marine snipers taking up position in Ramadi. Reuters ruled out any possibility Najim being linked to the rebels and called for a thorough investigation by the US army. Najim's colleagues and family believe he was killed by a US sniper.
(US Army says footage clearly shows reporter was operating with insurgents and died in a firefight. Rueters (with a vested interest) says no way was their reporter operating with terrorists and he was killed by a US sniper, not in fighting. I think this is a case worthy of investigation, especially as both sides claim to have footage to support them. Just like Eason Jordan's comments, "Let's go to the videotape!")
12.09.2004 - Mazen al-Tomaizi, Al-Arabiya
Palestinian journalist Mazen al-Tomaizi, who worked for the pan-Arab TV news station Al-Arabiya and the Saudi TV station Al-Ekhbariya, was reporting live on Al-Ekhbariya at the scene of a burning Bradley fighting vehicle on 12 September 2004 in Baghdad when he was hit by the impact of a missile fired from a US helicopter.
(Palestinian journalist filming a still burning Bradley. An AH fired a missile (rather apparently at what they thought destroyed the Bradley) and he died in the explosion.)
15.08.2004 - Mahmoud Hamid Abbas, ZDF
Abbas, 32, married with three children, was killed on 15 August 2004 on his way from his native Falluja to Baghdad. He had worked for the German TV Network ZDF as a freelance producer for about a year and a half.
When he phoned the ZDF office in Baghdad to say he was coming he mentioned he had just filmed a house destroyed by US warplanes. About 25 minutes later, he rang again to say he had seen a second attack. During the call, he suddenly said he and others with him were being fired at. There was a dull thud, apparently an explosion, and the line was cut off, according to ZDF correspondent in Iraq.
(I think it pretty absurd to think someone was calling in close air support on a moving reporter or that a pilot identified him as a journalist. I'll include it in suspicious because I know the kooks will and I want the details told.)
15.08.2004 - Hossam Ali, freelance Iraqi freelance photographer Hossam Ali was killed in Falluja on 15 August 2004 in unclear circumstances.
(Unclear circumstances is enough evidence for the Blame America First crowd...so I wanted to highlight it)
19.04.2004 - Assad Kadhim, Al-Iraqiya
29.04.2004 - Hussein Saleh, driver, Al-Iraquiya TV (Media Assistant)
TV The coalition-funded Al-Iraqyia said on 19 April 2004 that two of its staff had been killed that day as they travelled to Samarra north of Baghdad. "Journalist Assad Kadhim and driver Hussein Saleh have been killed", said TV news editor-in-chief Najm Khalfaji. He said the crew had started to film a US base as it came under fire.
(They were hired by the Coalition, and there is no indication who did the firing at them...but they were in the general vicinity of Americans when killed so that is probably enough for the blame America first crowd. Somewhat troubled by the dates being 10 days apart. These reporters that don't have frontiers apparently don't have editors either. Probably just a typo.)
26.03.2004 - Bourhan Mohammad al-Louhaybi, ABC News Bourhan Mohammad al-Louhaybi was killed while covering clashes between US forces and groups of armed Iraqis in Falluja, 50 kilometres west of Baghdad on 26 March 2004.
The cameraman, 34, had reportedly wanted to go on filming the clashes against the advice of some of his colleagues.
(Again, being in the general vicinity of Americans and fighting is enough for blame America firsters)
18.03.2004 - Ali Al-Khatib, Al-Arabiya
18.03.2004 - Ali Abdel Aziz, Al-Arabiya
Two Al-Arabiya journalists were hit by American shots on 18 March 2004 near the Borj al-Hayat Hotel although there their vehicle was clearly marked "TV."
Cameraman Ali Abdel-Aziz was killed instantly, and reporter Ali Al-Khatib died early the next day from his injuries at Baghdad's neurosurgical hospital. Both worked for the Dubai-based, pan-Arab TV news network Al-Arabiya.
The TV crew was there because the Borj al-Hayat Hotel had just sustained a rocket attack. Abdel Aziz's brother, Haidar Abdel Aziz, said Al-Arabiya had been given permission to film by the US army. "Suddenly, a Volvo did not stop at the roadblock and the soldiers began to open fire," he said. "My brother and the journalist wanted to leave, they ran towards their car, and at the moment that it was starting up, an armoured vehicle fired on it."
(So while parked in line at a roadblock...while someone was trying to ram through it...they started driving. Possibly not quite as much restraint as might be desired, but certainly not the military going hunting for journalists. Also, the RSF text is written to cast the Americans in the worst possible light...only the quote from the brother clarifies what happened.)
17.08.2003 - Mazen Dana, Reuters
Palestinian cameraman Mazen Dana, 43, was shot dead by an American soldier on 17 August 2003 as he was filming Abou Ghraib prison in a suburb of Baghdad. US officials said the soldier mistook his camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher. A veteran who had worked for the British news agency Reuters for 10 years, Dana won an international reputation for his coverage in his home town of Hebron in the Occupied Territories. He was roughed up and injured several times by Israeli soldiers and settlers while trying to shoot footage of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
(I find it interesting that RSF find the need to detail Israeli action at a totally different place and time in their very brief blurbs. They certainly don't give bios of other journalists. That said, he pointed a camera at a secure and notorius facility and a soldier mistook it for an weapon. Again, possibly not quite as much restraint as desired, but certainly not journalist hunting by the military. PS there is a reason that the military Public Affairs section escorts journalists.)
08.04.2003 - José Couso, Tele 5
08.04.2003 - Taras Protsyuk, Reuters
Two TV cameramen, Spaniard José Couso and Ukrainian Taras Protsyuk, were killed on 8 April 2003 when a US tank fired on the hotel Palestine in Baghdad, where many foreign journalists were staying.
(Probably the most famous incident. It is noted that RSF did not bother to give ANY indication as to WHY the tank fired on the hotel. The unit was under indirect fire, SIGINT picked up an Iraqi radio transmissions of an observer adjusting the artillery fire. The unit was looking for an artillery observer trying to kill them when two men on a high balcony, with obvious electronic equipment, in a good observation post, were taking an obvious interest in them. They were definitely shot by Americans. But there is no way it could be classified as 'targetting journalists')
08.04.2003 - Tarek Ayoub, Al Jazeera
Al-Jazeera cameraman Tarek Ayoub (35), a Jordanian, was killed on 8 April 2003 when a missile hit and badly damaged the station's offices near the Mansour Hotel in the centre of Baghdad.
Ayoub, who was the station's permanent correspondent in Amman, was sent to beef up the team in Iraq when the war broke out. He was seriously wounded in the attack and died soon afterwards.
(Part of Saddam's media control infrastructure. Best not to be in the belly of the beast when the beast is getting slain. Was he a cameraman or a correspondent?)
23.03.2003 - Terry Lloyd, ITV News
Reporter for the British TV network ITN, veteran British war reporter Terry Lloyd, 51, was killed in gunfire, probably from US-British troops, near Basra on 22 March 2003.
(I include this only because of RSF's wording. He drove literally between US and Iraqi forces in heavy combat. I have never seen any evidence as to which side hit him, but it was his own damn fault either way)
Not at all suspicious: (VERY clearly terrorist forces)
27.10.2004 - Liqaa Abdul-Razzaq, Al-Sharqiya
14.10.2004 - Karam Hussein, European Pressphoto Agency
14.10.2004 - Dina Mohamad Hassan, Al Hurriya Television
07.10.2004 - Ahmad Jassem, Nivive television
26.08.2004 - Enzo Baldoni, Diario della settimana
03.06.2004 - Sahar Saad Eddine Nouami, Al-Mizan, Al-Khaima, Al-Hayat Al-Gadida
27.05.2004 - Kotaro Ogawa, Nikkan Gendai
27.05.2004 - Shinsuke Hashida, Nikkan Gendai
07.05.2004 - Waldemar Milewicz, TVP
07.05.2004 - Mounir Bouamrane, TVP
18.03.2004 - Nadia Nasrat, Diyala Television
28.10.2003 - Ahmed Shawkat, Bila Ittijah
02.07.2003 - Ahmad Karim, Kurdistan Satellite TV
07.04.2003 - Christian Liebig, Focus
07.04.2003 - Julio Anguita Parrado, El Mundo
04.04.2003 - Michael Kelly, Washington Post
02.04.2003 - Kaveh Golestan, BBC
22.03.2003 - Paul Moran, Australian Broadcasting Corporation
15 Media assistants killed
(RSF doesn't bother to list any details of the media assistants. I will try to associate them based on dates with Reporters details and label them (S) Possibly Suspicious and (NS) Not at all Suspicious and (?) no info at all.)
25.08.2004 - Jamal Tawfiq Salmane, Gazeta Wyborcza (?)
29.05.2004 - Mahmoud Ismael Daood, bodyguard, Al-Sabah al-Jadid (?)
29.05.2004 - Samia Abdeljabar, driver, Al-Sabah al-Jadid (?)
27.05.2004 - Unknown, translator (NS)
25.05.2004 - Unknown, translator (?)
21.05.2004 - Rachid Hamid Wali, cameraman assistant, Al-Jazira (?)
29.04.2004 - Hussein Saleh, driver, Al-Iraquiya TV (S)(included in detail above)
26.03.2004 - Omar Hashim Kamal, translator, Time (Not sure. Same date as the ABC News guy in the vicinity of Fallujah, but different employer, and not mentioned in the blurb)
18.03.2004 - Majid Rachid, technician, Diyala Television (NS)
18.03.2004 - Mohamad Ahmad, security agent, Diyala Television (NS)
27.01.2004 - Duraid Isa Mohammed, producer and translator, CNN (? based on RSF, NS based on additional research)
27.01.2004 - Yasser Khatab, driver, CNN (? based on RSF, NS based on additional research))
07.07.2003 - Jeremy Little, sound engineer, NBC (?)
06.04.2003 - Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed, translator, BBC (?)
22.03.2003 - Hussein Othman, translator, ITV News (Same date as the NS Paul Moran, but is not mentioned in the blurb.)
I took a special interest in the two from CNN, as they were most likely to personlly affect Jordan. Here is CNN's article on it.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/meast/01/27/sprj.nirq.cnn.casualties/
Clearly terrorist actions. And the CNN car with the security people left them behind. Guilty conscience?
Overall I think the case of Dhia Najim is worth investigating. There is a truth and there is a good chance that we can get to it. But even if Najim was shot by a sniper, that by no means indicates that the US military deliberately targetted Najim or even identified him as a reporter. Other than that, I don't see anything that could even possibly be legitimately described as the military targetting journalists. Mistakes. Collateral damage. Panic. But if the US military set out to kill journalists, especially as a policy as Jordan insinuates, they would have been a whole lot more effective that what the evidence I have seen shows.
Posted by: Blank | February 06, 2005 at 22:07
Hmmm.
* British ITN veteran Terry Lloyd's killing at the start of the Iraq war
Investigated and found to be an accident. If you scream "coverup" then please explain exactly what would be covered up at the very beginning of a war?
* US forces bombing Al-Jazeera offices even when given their coordinates - plus several other attacks on Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and other Arab correspondents
*shrug* and we bombed the Chinese Embassy in Bosnia. Stupidity is Universal.
* US forces shelling the main journalists' hotel in Baghdad causing casualties among Reuters staff.
Actually this is not correct. The assumption was that a M1 Abrams tank had shot a main gun round at the hotel, but the damage pattern is completely off. No possible was a M1 Abrams responsible for that. Instead it was an RPG.
And please, no nonsense. M1 Abrams uses either a 105mm or 120mm hypervelocity cannon. It fires either a high explosive or armor piercing round.
A high explosive round would have gutted that section of hotel at the point of impact. An HE round is designed to project a jet of pure plasma that is designed to cut it's way through almost a meter of hardened armor steel. These weapons are designed to kill tanks at 2+ kilometers after all. The plasma jet would be about the diameter of your arm and would easily cut through several feet of solid concrete. It would also ignite anything remotely near the plasma jet. Plus the plasma also induces a vacuum that trails behind the jet itself. Anyone not killed by the jet would have been subject to possibly getting sucked through whatever hole the plasma jet had cut as it continued it's way through the hotel.
As an example I once found a ring of rabbit fur surrounding the exit hole of a LAWS rocket hit on a practice APC. Some unsuspecting rabbit had possibly survived the small plasma jet from the LAWS. But then had gotten sucked through the 1" hole the jet had made when it cut through both sides of the APC.
An armor piercing round would have cored the entire building, front to back, like an apple. This is a heavy depleted uranium spike designed to penetrate almost a meter of hardened armor steel.
Not only would there have been casualties in the struck room, but in the next several rooms beyond. As it is I definitely remember video shots of people running into the room, and onto the balcony, where the two reporters were killed.
The US military took responsibility for it, adhering to the principle that it's better to apologize quickly than to drag things out, but the simple facts are very clear.
No way an Abrams could hit a hotel room and not completely gut it and the rest of the hotel to boot.
Posted by: ed | February 06, 2005 at 08:25
Hmmm.
Amusing stuff. But you fail to account for a few things:
1. Native stringers.
The Associated Press likes to use native stringers in Iraq. These are people who are not journalists but who are local. These people are not necessarily vetted for independence from corruption or collusion and very well might be actual members of an insurgent group. Which of course would explain all those close up "action" shots of people firing RPGs in the streets. Not to mention the execution of election workers in Baghdad.
2. Reporters "embedded" with terrorists.
As incredible as this may seem there is actually some whack-nut reporter that is looking to become "embedded" with a terrorist group that is current operating attacks against Iraqi and American forces. I frankly think this is an idiotic idea that could only look reasonable to a lefty. I guess there's no such thing as treason anymore eh?
3. Terrorists deliberately using journalists "neutral" status to operate.
Frankly I think this is far more common than is currently supposed. Terrorists commonly travel in ambulances, using the camoflage of an official vehicle to operate. It's also true that Hamas uses such ruses commonly in it's operations against Israelis. Then there is that famous assassination by AQ in Afghanistan. This is where two AQ agents pretended to be journalists in order to get close to the Afghan commander in order to assassinate him.
4. How about the fact that journalists have NO responsibility for soldiers?
A common scenario for journalism school debate is one where an embedded reporter notices an ambush of his attached unit. Does the reporter advise the soldiers of the ambush, and thereby void his supposed "neutrality", or does he keep quiet and then write a Pulitzer Prize winning article about weeping over their bullet-ridden corpses and his terrible ordeal of having to get first-rate interviews with the attackers over several weeks with not a single Starbucks in sight.
Oh the horror. The horror.
What a silly question since we all know what that answer would have to be. Right? Glad we're all on the same page here.
Summary:
If you're in a combat zone and you're not embedded with a unit, then it's your arse on the line and it's your problem. Don't like it? Either get embedded, or don't be there. Otherwise say hello to Saint Peter for me.
Posted by: ed | February 06, 2005 at 07:59
I appreciate the influence of the 'powers that be' but why call for an 'investigation'? If I accuse Eason Jordan of personally killing 12 journalists, do you call for an investigation and global public disclosure of findings or do you ask me for the evidence that I base that accusation on?
I think you are (wrongly) starting from the basis that Eason Jordan's claims are legitimate. At the very least, we should be starting with what exactly he said...in full. As the sportscasters say, "Let's go to the Videotape!" At the very least, the transcript.
Posted by: Blank | February 04, 2005 at 20:30
"Harsh, Geneva style accountability."
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, roflol ha!
Sorry, couldn't resist laughing at that statement. Let's shoot for true accountability, shall we?
Great blog.
Steve C.
Posted by: Steve the Interloper | February 04, 2005 at 20:06
Very nice article. I am wondering, though, why you do not call for an investigation into Eason Jordan? In 2003, he confessed to knowing Saddam wanted his son-in-law dead and Eason did nothing. This was so he could stay in Baghdad. Saddam's son-in-law was murdered.
Eason made the same claim in Portugal, Novemeber 2004, about the Military targeting journalists. Why was there nothing said? Why were there no investigations? Why were there no stories? Is he responsible for the lives that were lost after he believed this? Is he including Daniel Pearl? Mr. Kelly? The NBC reporter?
Arthur Chrenkoff writes a monthly article on "Good News from Iraq," "Good News from Afghanstan," the Islamic World, and Europe. My apologies, but I forgot their titles for the last two. I hope you will find these as uplifting as many of us do.
Have you noticed that when you change the channel from one news station to another, you will see the SAME story? I changed the channel because I do NOT want to see that story! Hehehe. It is too compromised.
Getting back to the point, I do not believe our Military would target journalists. They don't even kill the enemy unless they're in a fire fight. I would need proof. I do not take Eason at his word. It has no credibility.
Thank you for the opportunity to express our views and questions. I hope you have a wonderful day.
Posted by: Rosemary | February 04, 2005 at 17:12
Wow - what's shocking here is not the assertions that US forces target journalists, which is undeniable, but the tentative can't-quite-believe-it approach that you take to the story.
Among the best reported examples are:
* British ITN veteran Terry Lloyd's killing at the start of the Iraq war
* US forces bombing Al-Jazeera offices even when given their coordinates - plus several other attacks on Al-Jazeera, Al-Arabiya and other Arab correspondents
* US forces shelling the main journalists' hotel in Baghdad causing casualties among Reuters staff.
Also relevant here, of course, is the disturbing new tactic of targeting and occupying hospitals (e.g. beginning of the Falluja attack) because US forces believe doctors are a potential source of uncontrolled information about victims of US operations. I believe that US military spokespeople are on record confirming this as the reason for their operation against the Falluja hospital they took at the start if their operation there.
Where is the ambiguity in these cases? This is no different to the acknowledged phenomenon of Israeli snipers shooting foreign peace activists and journalists to prevent them bearing witness to operations in the occupied territories.
Whilst you are to be commended for raising this issue, the idea of recommending "Better protections and neutrality status for journalists, subject to harsh, Geneva style accountability if violated" is woefully naive given that the new US Secretary of State has dismissed the Geneva Conventions in his justification of torture, and forces on the ground pay them frighteningly little heed. Do you really expect the United States military to observe international law? C'mon now..... that's so olde-worlde multilateral. Get with the new program!
Posted by: Lee | February 04, 2005 at 16:43
I have been hoping that voices like yours would become available. It is time that the illusion of free speech and democracy practiced in the US taday, and manipulated by the strident right wing blogsphere, radio world and cable TV, be answered in a deliberate even tone like yours which raises clear and specific questions.
Ward Churchill and M. Hamid Amal try to point out the weaknesses of US foreign policy in places like Iraq, but the strident and belligerent right wing does all they can to shout them down, get them fired from their day jobs or just plain shutdown.
YOur post is excellent to my simple mind. Keep it up and thx for all the useful links on this!!
Posted by: Robert Gagnon | February 04, 2005 at 06:11
Mr. Abovitz,
First, thank you for your posts on this subject.
Second, I want to take issue with one of your assertions: "At a minimum the data and confusion calls for at least someone of the stature of a U.S. Senator or Congressman to step in now and lead a robust investigation."
Unless I am missing something here, the data that exists is Mr. Jordan's assertion. I very much question if the unsubstantiated assertion of a single man, especially one who has a history of making similarly unsubstantiated allegations, should be sufficient to compell a Congressional investigation.
To me, that is a frightening proposition.
I think the news organization he heads should, at a minimum, report on his allegations and bring forward any and all substantiating evidence that led to his view. Then, and only then, if there is sufficient evidence to give his allegations some credence, should there be Congressional action.
In either case, I believe there are more than enough grounds for Mr. Jordan's dismissal. If his allegations are true, then he should be fired for not having his news organization report on it. And if his allegations are not true, he should be fired for abusing his position of stature to slander our troops in front of a foreign audience.
Posted by: Gerry | February 03, 2005 at 17:26
I would just like to note that I have been following this story avidly since it began to unfold and, of all the numerous voices to weigh in on this matter to date, yours is by far the most lucid.
Posted by: Gerard Van Der Leun | February 03, 2005 at 08:11
The track record of Jordan's similar statements on this issue make his 'clarification' difficult to believe as an expression of his true frame of mind when he made his controversial statements. I have indicated as much at my own blog and will direct my readers to your post here so they can read your thoughts as well.
Why can't we get a transcript of the original discussion? Is that forthcoming? Or is it available and I've overlooked it?
Posted by: PajamaHadin | February 03, 2005 at 05:57