april 2005

WORLD TRIBUNAL ON IRAQ

TO CONVENE IN ISTANBUL ON JUNE 23rd

Leading international figures among the Panel of Advocates

13 April 2005, Istanbul, Turkey - The organisers of the World Tribunal on Iraq (WTI) held a press conference today at the Sabanci University Communication Center in Istanbul providing details of the final session of the Tribunal that will be held at the Topkapi Palace Grounds in Istanbul between the 23rd and the 27th of June. The panel of advocates will include leading international figures, such as Dennis Halliday, Prof. Richard Falk and Scott Ritter (1). The final session in Istanbul will reach a decision on the 27th of June, following an examination of the results of the previous sessions as well as investigate new reports and testimonies.

“Taking its cue from the Russell Tribunal of the late 1960s, the World Tribunal on Iraq is aimed at challenging the silence around the aggression against Iraq and seeking the truth about the war and occupation in Iraq. This will be a process of listening, reflection, evaluation and informed judgement based on concrete evidence.” commented Melek Taylan, spokesperson for the WTI, at the press conference today.

The World Tribunal on Iraq is a worldwide initiative that works together in a non- hierarchical system as a horizontal network of local groups worldwide. The project consists of commissions of inquiry and sessions held around the world investigating various issues related to the war on Iraq, such as the legality of the war, the role of the United Nations, war crimes and the role of the media as well as the destruction of the cultural sites and environment (2). In these sessions, a platform was provided for people from Iraq, as well as experts and activists to articulate their concerns and demands and to present their reports.

“By this tribunal we are also aiming to leave a record to history of what actually happened and how it happened in Iraq through a book that will include all the evidence put together. Since the so called international community is at the moment incapable of judging the reasons and the actors responsible for the killings of innocent people in Iraq, the people of the world will take the initiative on its behalf.” concluded Mrs. Taylan.

For more information please contact,

WTI Office in Istanbul, + (90) 212 244 7370 or,

Tolga Temuge, International Communications and Media Coordinator, tolga.temuge@worldtribunal.org, + (356) 21 578 442

www.worldtribunal.org

NOTES:

• Dennis Halliday, former Assistant to the UN Secretary General and Director of the UN Humanitarian Aid Programme, Prof. Richard Falk, UNESCO peace prize holder and Professor of International Law, and Scott Ritter, former weapons inspector with the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) on Iraq. For the full list of panel of advocates, the jury of conscience and the witnesses please refer to the WTI press kit

The American Knee Capping Kills

By Malcom Lagauche

March 23, 2005

http://www.uruknet.info/?s1=2&p=10590&s2=23
Equating murder and torture to a dental appointment


Shortly after the illegal invasion of Iraq by the U.S. in March 2003, the Iraqi government broadcast a few pictures of U.S. prisoners of war. The prisoners stated their names and where they were from. Nothing more.
"Foul!" called the U.S. "How dare the Iraqis parade our soldiers in front of a camera?" Then, the U.S. propaganda elaborated on the breaking of the rules of war and the Geneva Convention.

Hypocrites all. Tens of thousands of Iraqi and Afghani prisoners of war (most civilian non-combatants) only wish that the only humiliation placed on them would to be put in front of a camera without being sexually embarrassed or tortured.

Currently, a U.S. soldier, Private First Class Willie Brand, is the focus of a hearing to determine if he should be court-martialed for his role in the death of an Afghani prisoner of war. He is accused of beating the Afghani to death over a five-day period at Bagram Control Point in Afghanistan.

On March 22, 2005, Al-Jazeera.net reported: An autopsy showed that Dilawar’s (the prisoner) legs were so damaged by blows that amputation would have been necessary if he had survived. Dilawar died from "blunt force trauma to the lower extremities complicating coronary artery disease," according to a U.S. Army report dated 6 July 2004.

Galligan (Bran’s attorney) said the knee-strike technique is a "non-lethal mechanism utilized to ensure compliance with a combative detainee."

The above information is laden with contradictions. First of all, the victim was beaten for five days straight. Then, the soldier’s lawyer calls the technique "non-lethal," while the U.S. Army itself concluded that the victim died because of the blows. Unfortunately, few people in the U.S. have enough reading skills to question how a non-lethal technique can kill someone.Galligan is using the same tired defense of his client just following orders. He is probably correct, but the U.S. administration has whitewashed any attempt to blame higher officials for the murder and torture of the massive numbers of detainees. They say it was the lower ranks who took it upon themselves, while the underlings maintain they were persuaded or ordered to torture from orders from the top of the chain of command.A blind man can see that the torturing of Iraqis and Afghanis is so organized that it did come from the top.

However, it also appears that a number of the enlisted people charged in these cases actually enjoyed their experiences. After the hearing, Brand was interviewed by the El Paso Times newspaper. He stated, "I thought it went reasonably well, like a dental appointment."


Recently, Charles Graner was convicted for torturing Iraqis. This case was much more visible than that of Brand, but the same illogic ruled.
Graner’s lawyer, Guy Womack, equated the stacking of nude Iraqis on top of each other to "a cheerleader pyramid." However, I have yet to see a cheerleader pyramid with nude cheerleaders who were incarcerated. And, many U.S. citizens have bought into this defense. Graner, to them, was just performing his duty.

Womack had an answer for everything. When asked about tethering prisoners together, he stated that you see the same thing happen every day in U.S. airports when parents keep their kids tethered. As to the allegations of tying prisoners together with rope dunked in feces, he said, "That’s nothing. In Texas we would have lassoed them." How far has the U.S. descended into lunacy and hatred? A prison guard who shoves phosphoric lights up a person’s anus; who urinates on people; and who beats the genitalia of another person to a pulp; and who shows delight in such actions (all the time quoting the Bible), is depicted as one using "good foresight" and "creative techniques" in torturing individuals.

I challenge our leaders again to speak out against these actions. And, again, I will lay the blame with Democrats and Republicans alike. Not one Democrat has stood up and publicly demanded a full inquiry into the prisoner abuse.Equating murder and torture to a dental appointment or a cheerleaders’ pyramid is depraved. The fact that the U.S. public accepts these actions is beyond belief. The term "moral values" is being constantly shoved down the throats of the U.S. citizenry. Politicians, clergymen, business tycoons, athletes and entertainers: they all are into this currently in-vogue preaching of morality. If a 12-year-old kid slips at the dinner table and says the word "shit," he would immediately be reprimanded and punished. He did something immoral. Then, after he is exiled to his bedroom, his parents watch the nightly news and cheer on the Graners and Brands of the world.

Did Iraqi Police Truly Kill 85 Resistance Fighters in a Camp? 

By Hassan El-Najjar

Al-Jazeerah, March 24, 2005

The following is an amazing news report that even the news agency of Reuters, which reported it, is not buying it. The emphasis is added by Al-Jazeerah editor showing the points of criticism of the report.

It seems that the US-installed Iraqi government is desperate to show any success in facing the Iraqi resistance that US forces could not crush. The story of killing 85 Iraqi resistance fighters does not stand a moment of scrutiny.

First, it is illogical to accept the low casualties (only seven policemen) in a battle that allegedly lasted several hours, and in which 85 resistance fighters were killed.

Second, it is hard to believe that resistance fighters are so naive to gather in one place. This would attract the attention of the government agents and informers.

Third, how can a remote place near a lake 160 km northwest of Baghdad have electricity, as indicated by finding computers?

Fourth, the government did not air or distribute any video footage showing these alleged 85 people killed.

Fifth, It is hard to believe that from this large number of fighters all what the US-led forces could arrest was only one Algerian fighter.

Sixth, Usually there should be three times as many wounded fighters as killed ones in a battle. It is beyond comprehension that no injuries were reported, all were killed. The only left explanation is using chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction. 

Seventh, it is unlikely that Arab volunteers fighting with the Iraqi resistance would be carrying identity cards which show their countries of origin, particularly because they know it is a goal of the US-installed Iraqi government to exaggerate the presence of Arab fighters in the Iraqi resistance movement.

Eighth, the government claimed that the resistance training camp was in a remote location west of Tikrit and Samarra, where U.S. troops have had a presence for nearly two years. As the Reuters report exclaimed, it was not clear how such a large camp could have been established without earlier detection by the US or Iraqi intelligence or informers.

Finally, how can a car suicide bomb exploding in a US patrol in Mosul not result in US deaths or injuries?

This is an example of daily reports from Iraq. Most of the Iraqi resistance attacks are not reported and activities of US-led forces are exaggerated. In deed, the first casualty of war is the truth.

MEDIA ALERT: "NO GREAT WAY TO DIE" - BUT THE GENERALS LOVE NAPALM

Exchange With the BBC's Director of News


"These are the stories that will continue to emerge from the rubble of Fallujah for years. No, for generations..."
(Dahr Jamail, independent reporter in Iraq)


Heavily Conditioned Sensitivity

Traditionally, Western journalists give massive emphasis to acts of violence committed by official enemies of the West, while lightly passing over Western responsibility for often far more extreme violence. As Robert Fisk has noted:

"The atrocities of yesterday - the Beslan school massacre, the Bali bombings, the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001, the gassings of Halabja - can still fill us with horror and pity, although that sensitivity is heavily conditioned by the nature of the perpetrators. In an age where war has become a policy option rather than a last resort, where its legitimacy rather than its morality can be summed up on a sheet of A4 paper, we prefer to concentrate on the suffering caused by 'them' rather than 'us'." (Fisk, 'When weeping for religious martyrs leads to the crucifixion of innocents', The Independent, 26 March, 2005)

By contrast, the journalist Dahr Jamail recently interviewed an Iraqi doctor from Fallujah who describes atrocities committed by US forces during their assault on that city last November. The doctor, now a refugee in Jordan and speaking on condition of anonymity, insists his testimony is backed up by video and photographic evidence.

According to the doctor, during the second week of their attack US forces "announced that all the families [had] to leave their homes and meet at an intersection in the street while carrying a white flag. They gave them 72 hours to leave and after that they would be considered an enemy. We documented this story with video - a family of 12, including a relative and his oldest child who was 7 years old. They heard this instruction, so they left with all their food and money they could carry, and white flags. When they reached the intersection where the families were accumulating, they heard someone shouting 'Now!' in English, and shooting started everywhere." (Jamail, 'Stories from Fallujah', 8 February, 2005, http://dahrjamailiraq.com/weblog/archives/dispatches/000196.php)

A surviving eyewitness told the doctor everyone in the family was carrying white flags, as instructed. Nevertheless, the witness watched as his mother was shot in the head and his father was shot through the heart by snipers. His two aunts were also shot, and his brother was shot in the neck. The survivor stated that when he raised himself from the ground to shout for help, he too was shot in the side. The doctor continued: "After some hours he raised his arm for help and they shot his arm. So after a while he raised his hand and they shot his hand."

A six year-old boy was standing over the bodies of his parents, crying, and he too was shot.

"Anyone who raised up was shot," the doctor said, adding that he had photographs of the dead and also of survivors' gunshot wounds.

Grisly Accounts - A Few Questions For The BBC

On 15th February, Media Lens contacted the BBC's director of news, Helen Boaden, and asked whether the BBC was investigating these specific allegations of US atrocities. Her response came via a BBC spokesperson:

"The conduct of coalition forces has been examined at length by BBC programmes, and if justified, that will continue to be the case." (Email from BBC Press Office, 23 February, 2005)

In a follow-up query sent on February 25, we asked which BBC programmes had addressed the conduct of "coalition" forces in Fallujah, including the above evidence of war crimes. Our email was ignored.

Meanwhile, further evidence of US war crimes continued to emerge. Aljazeera reported on March 3:

"Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah."

The official reported evidence that US forces had "used... substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city."

Fallujah residents described how they had seen "melted" bodies in the city, indicative of usage of napalm, a lethal cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that incinerates the human body. ('US used banned weapons in Fallujah - Health ministry', 3 March, 2005, http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/news_service/middle_east_full_story.asp?service_id=7216)

Claims are one thing, but can these allegations be corroborated? American documentary film-maker Mark Manning recently returned from Fallujah after delivering medical supplies to refugees. Manning was able to secretly conduct 25 hours of videotaped interviews with dozens of Iraqi eyewitnesses - men, women and children who had experienced the assault on Fallujah first-hand. In an interview with a local newspaper in the United States, Manning recounted how he:

"... was told grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American soldiers. He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by both American and Iraqi troops. Manning said he heard numerous reports of the second siege of Falluja that described American forces deploying - in violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted uranium. Use of any of these against civilians is a violation of international law."(Nick Welsh, 'Diving into Fallujah", Santa Barbara Independent, 17 March, 2005, http://www.independent.com/cover/Cover956.htm)

We pressed Boaden to explain why the BBC news had devoted so little attention to these repeated allegations of US atrocities, or to the evidence of the use of banned weapons in Fallujah. Boaden responded:

Dear David Cromwell,

Thank you for your latest e-mails to me and my colleagues. Our bureau in Baghdad and our defence correspondent are aware of the particular claims to which you refer. Naturally, independent verification of these reports is vital - and, as you know, our movements within Iraq are severely restricted for security reasons. However, Fallujah is an ongoing issue and our team in Baghdad are constantly talking to contacts about what happened there and are assessing all the information they receive. Our World Current Affairs teams are also looking into a range of related issues.

Regarding the allegation that the Americans used internationally banned weapons during the assault on Fallujah, one of our correspondents who was an "embed" with the US troops in Fallujah said that he saw no evidence of the use of such weapons and that there was never any reference made to them at the confidential pre-assault military briefings he attended. Paul Wood also says: "The character of the fighting that I saw was bloody, old-fashioned clearing of houses and buildings street by street, block by block, the kind of fighting which is done with little more than an M16 and a handful of grenades. It doesn't make sense to use mustard gas, nerve agents, other chemical agents or nuclear devices -- to quote the Al Jazeera story -- in such a small space also occupied by your own forces.

The Americans certainly did possess terrifying weapons, such as 155mm artillery, or M1 A1 Abrams tanks, and I questioned the Marines about the use of such powerful arms in an area which might still contain civilians. 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. Of course, we keep an open mind and will always investigate, and report, any hard evidence which comes to light.
Yours sincerely,
Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News (Email to Media Lens, 7 March, 2005)


We replied two days later:

Dear Helen Boaden,

Many thanks for responding; it's much appreciated. I am pleased to hear that the BBC is pursuing vigorously the mounting evidence of US atrocities in Fallujah.

There are a couple of points about your response I would like you to clarify, please. You say that the BBC had "total access to the military operation, at all levels". Would you please justify this claim.

Secondly, you have marked your response as "private, not for publication". What is in it that you do not want brought to public attention?

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

best wishes,
David Cromwell (Email, 9 March, 2005)

Boaden replied:

Thank you for your further email. We treat correspondence as private as a rule and have concerns about distortions arising if we are quoted out of context. If you wish to publish our responses, please go through the BBC's press office.

In response to your query, Paul Wood says that total access meant that he was never stopped from going into any meeting he asked to go into. He was embedded at battalion level but , for instance, he did show up several times (and film) at the colonel's morning meeting with senior staff, where orders were given out.

Paul says, " Most importantly, I also attended the eve of battle briefing for the battalion, at which there were slides and folders with "Top Secret" stamped all over them.

"At this briefing, we were given exactly the same information as the officers who were about to command the Marines in battle. We knew what they knew. There was incredibly sensitive information, such as the latest satellite imagery of the insurgents and the distilled "humint" or human intelligence, such as it was, on the insurgents' movements and strength. We were, of course, covered by the rules of the embed, which were particularly strict about operational security. That meant I couldn't go on air with the battle plan before it started, or at any stage go into details about the exact rules of engagement. Total access also meant access on the ground, going out with individual patrols, hearing the orders as they were given out, seeing how they were implemented. "

Paul Wood believes that if the US military were going to use banned weapons the troops would have to be briefed in advance. At the meetings he attended there was no such briefing. Paul stresses that the point about these kinds of banned weapons is that they do not discriminate between friendly and enemy forces. That means you have to make sure your troops know and you have to make sure they have the necessary NBC kit.

Paul says, "We would have seen the Americans in full NBC kit, much as they were when they fought their way up to Baghdad in March 2003. That is why I just don't think it plausible that these weapons were used. "

Compellingly, Paul Wood has had meetings with the relevant specialists at Human Rights Watch, who have been very tough on the US military as regards abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul asked them specifically about banned weapons in Fallujah.They said they had heard the claims, had made some [sic] investigations, and had found no evidence that such weapons had been used. They also found the idea implausible for the reasons Paul states above. He also says that HRW had seen no evidence of napalm use -- nor the nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons claimed [sic] by Al Jazeera and Media Lens.

Yours sincerely,
Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News (Email, 17 March, 2005)

Media Lens then replied:

Many thanks for your latest email. I appreciate your taking the time and trouble to send it.

Your response does not support your earlier assertion that the BBC "had total access to the military operation, at all levels". I note that you have, in fact, backed down from that claim given that you state that it means simply that Paul Wood "was never stopped from going into any meeting he asked to go into." That is not at all the same thing. Also, Wood says that he "attended the eve of battle briefing for the battalion". What evidence does he have that this was the +only+ such briefing?

Are you aware that US marines have, in fact, already admitted that they have used an upgraded version of napalm? (Andrew Buncombe, 'US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq', The Independent on Sunday, 10 August, 2003). The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was deployed when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad. As Andrew Buncombe reported in the Independent on Sunday:

"We napalmed both those bridge approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."

Also, you will be aware that BBC Worldwide Monitoring has picked up multiple media reports of US use of poisonous gas in Falluja. For example, this item dated 2 March in the Lexis-Nexis database:

"Text of report by Abd-al-Hamid Abdallah in Baghdad headlined 'Occupation forces use apple-scented poisonous gas against residents of Al-Fallujah' carried on Saudi newspaper Al-Jazirah web site on 28 February.

"Sources from Iraq's Association of Muslim Scholars who have recently visited Al-Fallujah say the occupation forces used poisonous gas against the inhabitants of the city in the last couple of days."

If BBC Worldwide Monitoring is relaying such reports, why is the BBC not ever referring to them in its news bulletins? You refer to HRW who had "made some investigations". How comprehensive were they? What about the investigations and reports made by Iraqi medical staff and Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry? Why have you dismissed those? This would appear to contravene BBC producers' guidelines on balance, fairness, accuracy and impartiality.

Re: atrocities carried out by US forces. Are you aware of a newspaper interview with two men from Falluja - physician Mahammad J. Haded and Mohammad Awad, director of a refugee centre - in the German daily Junge Welt, Week final supplement, Feb 26, 2005? Excerpt:

"I saw in Falluja with own eyes a family that had been shot by U.S. soldiers: The father was in his mid-fifties, his three children between ten and twelve years old. In the refugee camp a teacher told me she had been preparing a meal, when soldiers stormed their dwelling in Falluja. Without preliminary warning they shot her father, her husband and her brother. Then they went right out. From fear the woman remained in the house with the dead bodies. In the evening other soldiers came, who took her and her children and brought them out of the city. Those are only two of many tragedies in Falluja." (International Action Center, "Fallujah was wiped out", http://www.iacenter.org/jc_falluja.htm)

Why are such tragedies given such scant coverage, if any, by BBC news? Would you please retract your assertion that claims of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons use have been made +by+ Media Lens. That is incorrect. We are asking the BBC to report such claims; an entirely different matter.

I am pleased that we are able to undertake a polite, civilised and rational exchange of views. Could you please explain why this cannot appear on the BBC website - for example on your Newswatch pages? Failing that, Media Lens would be pleased to host this exchange at our own website.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

best wishes,
David Cromwell
co-editor
Media Lens (Email, 21 March, 2005)

Within four hours we received the following abrupt dismissal:

Dear David Cromwell

Thank you for your further email. However, I do not believe that further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful purpose.

Yours sincerely
Helen Boaden
Director, BBC News (Email, 21 March, 2005)

We at Media Lens do not know whether US forces have used banned weapons in their attack on Fallujah. However, it is remarkable that the BBC is, in effect, suppressing repeated and persistent reports of their +alleged+ use. Even more depressing is the failure of the BBC to convey the sheer scale of the horror inflicted upon Iraqi civilians. Dahr Jamail notes:

"The military estimates that 2,000 people in Fallujah were killed, but claims that most of them were fighters. Relief personnel and locals, however, believe the vast majority of the dead were civilians." (Jamail, 'An Eyewitness Account of Fallujah', 16 December, 2004, http://www.dahrjamailiraq.com/hard_news/archives/2004_12_19.php)

A report on Fallujah presented to the 61st session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights by the Baghdad-based Studies Center of Human Rights and Democracy appeals to the international community:

"What more tragedies are the international bodies waiting for in order to raise their voices demanding to stop the massacres and mass killings of the civilians?"

The report warns that "there are mass graves in the city" and "the medical authorities and the citizens could not find the burial ground of 450 bodies of the citizens of Fallujah that the American occupation forces have photographed and buried in a place that is still unknown." (SCHRD, 'Report on the current situation in Fallujah', 26 March, 2005, http://www.brusselstribunal.org/pdf/lastReportFallujah%20crimes.pdf)

We understand that lack of security means there are severe difficulties in reporting from Iraq. But as independent reporters like Dahr Jamail and Mark Manning have shown, it +is+ possible to obtain detailed testimony relating to possible war crimes in Fallujah - testimony that surely merits discussion. The BBC's grievous omissions highlight, once again, its longstanding complicity in Western mass violence.


SUGGESTED ACTION

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. When writing emails to journalists, we strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone.

Write to Helen Boaden, BBC news director:
Email: helen.boaden@bbc.co.uk

Please also send all emails to us at Media Lens: