Silence In The Service of Power

[Guest guest]

Tue, 30 May 2006 16:15:22 UT

" Medialens Media Alerts " <noreply

Silence In The Service of Power

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MEDIA LENS: Correcting for the distorted vision of the corporate media

 

May 30, 2006

 

 

MEDIA ALERT: SILENCE IN THE SERVICE OF POWER

 

Media Protection Of The Supreme International War Criminals

 

 

" Then They Killed My Granny "

 

In November last year, as many as 24 Iraqi civilians - among them 11

women and children - were killed by US marines in Haditha, western Iraq.

The New York Times has described the atrocity as possibly " the gravest

case involving misconduct by American ground forces in Iraq " . Initial

US army reports had suggested the Iraqis died from a makeshift bomb, a

lie that was swiftly replaced by another: that the civilians had been

killed in crossfire between marines and 'insurgents'.

 

In fact, the evidence indicates that the victims were killed during a

" sustained " attack by US forces lasting between three and five hours.

Deaths occured " inside at least two homes that included women and

children " . The slaughter was " methodical in nature " . (Thom Shanker, Eric

Schmitt And Richard A. Oppel Jr., 'Military Expected to Report Marines

Killed Iraqi Civilians,' New York Times, May 25, 2006)

 

Many of the victims were killed " execution-style, " shot in the head or

in the back. One US government official said that the US marines had

" suffered a total breakdown in morality and leadership, with tragic

results " . (Tony Perry and Julian E. Barnes, 'Photos Indicate Civilians

Slain

Execution-Style,' Los Angeles Times, May 27, 2006)

 

Eman Waleed, 9, a survivor of the atrocity, was interviewed by Time

magazine. Eman lived close to the site of the roadside bomb that killed a

marine. She " heard a lot of shooting, so none of us went outside.

Besides, it was very early, and we were all wearing our nightclothes. " US

marines then entered her family's house:

 

" First, they went into my father's room, where he was reading the

Qur'an, " she said, " and we heard shots. "

 

Next, the marines entered the living room:

 

" I couldn't see their faces very well - only their guns sticking into

the doorway. I watched them shoot my grandfather, first in the chest and

then in the head. Then they killed my granny. "

 

Eman says the troops fired towards the corner of the room where she and

her younger brother, Abdul Rahman, 8, were hiding. The other adults

were killed shielding the children from the bullets:

 

" We were lying there, bleeding, and it hurt so much. Afterward, some

Iraqi soldiers came. They carried us in their arms. I was crying,

shouting, 'Why did you do this to our family?' And one Iraqi soldier

tells me,

'We didn't do it. The Americans did.' " (Suzanne Goldenberg, 'Marines

may face trial over Iraq massacre,' The Guardian, May 27, 2006)

 

US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld told US news channels that the

allegations are being investigated thoroughly and would be handled " in

the

normal order of things " . (Al-Jazeera, 'US troops killed Iraqis " in cold

blood " ,' May 19, 2006;

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/887CEBF0-DF83-4D99-9BD2-9F14BAC4DA7C.htm)

 

The Times (London) notes that: " the damage limitation has already

begun. " The paper explains:

 

" Lawyers who have talked to the Marines emphasise the extreme pressure

that they were facing that day. The insurgents had mounted a wave of

attacks, and the town was one of the most dangerous in Iraq for US

troops. " (Ali Hamdani, Ned Parker, Nick Meo and Tom Baldwin, `The

Marines and

a " massacre " in Iraq,' The Times, May 27, 2006)

 

Damage limitation includes shifting blame back on to the Iraqis:

 

" Marine officers have long been worried that Iraq's deadly insurgency

could prompt such a reaction by combat teams. " (Perry and Barnes, op.

cit.)

 

Andrew Murray, chair of the Stop the War Coalition, said:

 

" It's clear that what happened in Haditha is a war crime. It would be

idle to think this is the first war crime that has been committed in the

last three years. It must be assumed that more of this is going on. "

(Raymond Whitaker, 'The massacre and the Marines,' Independent on Sunday,

May 28, 2006)

 

For example, independent journalist Dahr Jamail wrote recently:

 

" On March 15th, 11 Iraqis, mostly women and children, were massacred by

US troops in Balad. Witnesses told reporters that US helicopters landed

near a home, which was then stormed by US troops. Everyone visible was

rounded up and taken inside the house where they were killed. The

victims' ages ranged from six months to 75 years. " (Jamail, 'How

massacres

become the norm', April 4, 2006;

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/040406Z.shtml)

 

Readers will recall our recent media alert highlighting a BBC Newsnight

film, based on the testimony of US veterans, that provided evidence for

the routine killing of Iraqi civilians. To our knowledge, the film

generated no coverage in the British press. ('You Could Kill Whoever You

Wanted To', April 19, 2006;

http://www.medialens.org/alerts/06/060419_you_could_kill.php)

 

 

Media Amplification of the Mythology of 'Mistakes'

 

As we have repeatedly noted in our media alerts, the 'news' is often

what powerful leaders want it to be. Consider an online BBC news article

which channelled President Bush and Prime Minister Blair's

hand-wringing pronouncements on their " mistakes in Iraq " :

 

" The two leaders have never admitted their mistakes in such frank

terms, the BBC's Jonathan Beale says... BBC diplomatic correspondent

Jonathan Marcus says Iraq has cast a shadow over the leaders' careers

and both

were seeking to play up the potential for change afforded by the new

democratically-elected government in Baghdad. " ('Bush and Blair admit

errors,' BBC news online, May 26, 2006;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/5016548.stm)

 

The vital missing context from this report, and BBC news programmes

generally, is as follows. The UK (though not the US) is a signatory to

the

treaty that set up the International Criminal Court (ICC). Underpinning

the ICC are the Geneva conventions and the 1945 Nuremberg charter. The

latter states clearly:

 

" To initiate a war of aggression ... 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. " (http://www.counterpunch.org/herman05112006.html)

 

The BBC tells us that Bush and Blair now admit " mistakes " in Iraq and

that " Iraq has cast a shadow over the leaders' careers. " But the

publicly-funded broadcaster has yet to report that Bush and Blair have

committed crimes; in fact, " the supreme international crime " as

defined at the

Nuremberg trials.

 

What does the British press have to say on the matter? On May 26, 2006

we conducted a newspaper database search covering the period since the

invasion of Iraq on March 20, 2003. We searched for articles addressing

the possibility that Tony Blair might have committed the " supreme

international crime " . We could find only six such articles; two of those

were by John Pilger.

 

Certainly, there have been newspaper reports that mentioned moves to

impeach Tony Blair, a campaign led by Plaid Cymru MP Adam Price. A few

reports in January 2006 noted that General Sir Michael Rose, the British

UN commander in Bosnia, had called for Blair to be impeached. The news

reports that mentioned the grounds for impeachment were couched in

terms of the Prime Minister having " misled the country in the run-up to

war. " But the more damning indictment of having committed the supreme

international crime of launching a war of aggression, and the context of

the Nuremberg judgement, is entirely missing. Of the 190 press reports in

over three years that mention the impeachment campaign, we could not

find even one report that included this basic context.

 

There have also been newspaper reports about Malcolm Kendall-Smith, the

airforce officer who was jailed in April for eight months for refusing

to serve in Iraq. The press reports explained that Kendall-Smith had

challenged the legality of the invasion and occupation. " Nuremberg " was

mentioned in a total of 34 of these news stories as the basis for Flight

Lieutenant Kendall-Smith's defence. But details and context were once

again lacking. In particular, not one press report explicitly stated

that Bush and Blair could be charged with the " supreme international

crime " of conspiring to launch a war of aggression under the Nuremberg

charter.

 

The closest approximation to the truth was in press reporting of the

RAF's legal argument in Kendall-Smith's court case. The argument was that

no " individual service personnel could be implicated in 'crimes of

aggression' [because] these were a 'leadership crime' which the Nuremberg

trials established could not be committed by an individual not in a

position to dictate state policy. " (Richard Norton-Taylor, The Guardian,

'RAF doctor refused Iraq return because " invasion was unlawful " ,' March

16, 2006)

 

This tortuous wording avoided any direct indication that Bush and Blair

are culpable for the supreme international crime.

 

 

The " Bad Argument " That Launched An Invasion

 

In his book, Lawless World, Philippe Sands QC comments on the Attorney

General, Lord Goldsmith's, legal advice, dated March 17, 2003, giving

Blair the green light to go to war without a second UN resolution:

 

" It is a bad argument, and very few states and virtually no established

international lawyers see its merits. " (Sands, Lawless World, Penguin,

2006, p.189)

 

Just ten days earlier, the Attorney General had issued a carefully

worded document which had been full of caveats about the possibility

of any

legal case supporting an invasion of Iraq. Sands told the BBC that he

had consulted with fellow barristers and they had concluded:

 

" This 7 March document is written by a man who, in his heart,

recognises that, without a second resolution, the war would be

unlawful. " (John

Silverman, 'Was this a man under pressure?' [referring to Lord

Goldsmith], BBC news online, April 28, 2005;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/vote_2005/frontpage/4492093.stm)

 

As Sands noted in his book:

 

" A little-noticed passage of the Attorney General's 7 March advice

pointed out that 'aggression is a crime under customary international law

which automatically forms part of domestic law'. Those most closely

associated with the initiation of recent events in Iraq may also want to

avoid holidays in those countries that have criminalized the planning,

preparation or conduct of aggressive war. " (Sands, op. cit., pp. 282-283)

 

Critical comments about Blair and Bush's invasion and occupation of

Iraq have, of course, been made by newspaper columnists. But we have not

seen anyone who has explained that Bush and Blair would be found guilty

by the standards applied at Nuremberg.

 

One columnist who has at least called for Blair's impeachment is the

Independent's Andreas Whittam-Smith:

 

" [bush and Blair] cannot admit failure. Their periods in office are

ruined. Their reputations are tarnished. In theory they could use

Saturday's announcement of a new Iraqi government as a reason to get

out. But

they are trapped. And more lives will be unnecessarily lost before the

agony is over.

 

" The US President and the British Prime Minister really should be

impeached, but I don't suppose they will be. " (Whittam-Smith, 'Now the US

and Britain can declare victory in Iraq and bring their troops back

home,' The Independent, May 22, 2006)

 

It is entirely unsurprising that Bush and Blair are not under sustained

pressure to face impeachment - the establishment media and political

system, virtually en masse, has rejected even the possibility.

 

Despite overwhelming legal opinion on the illegality of the war, and

huge public opposition to the invasion and occupation, not a single

editorial in any British national newspaper has, as far as know, ever

stated

that western leaders ought to stand trial before the International

Criminal Court. Not one newspaper in its leader column has called for

Blair

to be impeached for war crimes. The editorial silence from the

Guardian, Independent, Financial Times, Daily Telegraph, The Times and

the rest

is shameful.

 

A British Prime Minister may launch a war of aggression, cause death

and suffering on an unimaginable scale, and +still+ not be held to

account by the supposed 'watchdogs' of democracy.

 

Further proof, if any were needed, that the British media is indeed a

guardian of brutal and destructive power.

 

 

SUGGESTED ACTION

 

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and

respect for others. In writing letters to journalists, we strongly urge

readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to

one or more of the journalists and editors below. It is more effective

to write in your own words.

 

Write to Jonathan Beale, BBC reporter:

Email: jonathan.beale

 

Write to Jonathan Marcus, BBC diplomatic correspondent:

Email: jonathan.marcus

 

Write to Helen Boaden, BBC news director:

Email: helenboaden.complaints

 

Official complaints to the BBC can be submitted via this form:

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

 

Write to Simon Kelner, editor of the Independent:

Email: s.kelner

 

Write to John Bryant, acting editor of the Daily Telegraph:

Email: john.bryant

 

Write to Lionel Barber, editor of the Financial Times:

Email: lionel.barber

 

Write to Alan Rusbridger, editor of The Guardian

alan.rusbridger

 

Please do NOT reply to the email address from which this media alert

originated. Please email editor instead.

 

Sincere apologies to readers trying to get hold of our new Media Lens

book `Guardians of Power: The Myth Of The Liberal Media' by David

Edwards and David Cromwell (Pluto Books, London). The book has sold

out and

is currently being reprinted by the publisher. It should be available

again from the middle of June. For further details, including reviews,

interviews and extracts, please

 

http://www.medialens.org/bookshop/guardians_of_power.php

 

This is a free service. However, financial support is vital. Please

consider donating to Media Lens: http://www.medialens.org/donate.html

 

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org