Bloggers on Booman Tribune and Daily Kos as well as elsewhere have rightly made a great deal of the Bush administrations’s revealing that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA agent. But diaries in the past few days have shown up some sheer hypocrisy of many in criticising the journalists involved in this.
There are obvious reasons for the US to have laws against the identification of CIA agents. For a start, it negates their usefulness in the field but there is a far more pressing reason for doing so. By revealing their identity, some agents could be placed at risk of their lives while working in the field. Rightly, many have taken up the case of Plame’s exposure apparently by a senior Bush official as a cause celebre.
Yet the same bloggers who have revelled in the discomfort or right-wing journalists seem to have no problem with showing pictures of the two SAS soldiers doing undercover work in Basra who were captured by Iraqi police. I believe I was the only one to point out that the UK media pixillate out the faces of anybody involved in the special forces and strongly hinted that this was the reason for the MoD’s request rather than the stated position that it was to protect their families. I would suggest that protection of their identify for their physical safety in future operations is even more pressing than that for Ms Plame.
Clearly those bearing the most blame are those agencies which have carried the pictures and footage released by the Iraqi police. Since it very soon became obvious that this organisation has been infiltrated by some of the militia or their sympathisers, should not they have questioned whether to publish the pictures in a clear form? Nevertheless, I believe I am the first to raise this question in relation to their dissemination in various diaries.
This does of course raise questions of to what extent self-censorship should be exercised by the blogging community. This undeniably happens. Where for example are the uncensored picures of the contractors’ burnt bodies hanging from the bridge in Hallabja? There is a case for such restraint. As far as I am aware, no UK media have published the pictures from Basra of the British soldier in flames jumping from his Warrior APC. Censorship or not wishing to give succor to the right wing who would be demanding oppressive action against the whole civilian population, when the numbers involved in the protest were maybe 0.1% or less of the people in the city?
.
In publication of my breaking news diary
Stand-off Basra :: Iraqi vs UK Forces – Riots After UK Soldiers Arrested
◊ by Oui ● Mon Sep 19th, 2005 at 06:56:10 AM PST
I believe my diary was one of earliest to recognize the importance of this news item.
I found the Reuters photos with caption not to publish these. I refrained from publication at blown up size, until hours later it became clear the request was for political, selfish purpose. Another reason, these photos originated in the Arab media and were published all over the Internet and media. So this was not a freak photo, but one of many in all forms and in multiple shots. It became clear there was also TV footage available.
As the story developed into a world-wide top news item, my decision not to publish served no purpose and the story became more important than a request by MoD to prevent publication. I listen to BBC World continuously, and the false information and propaganda motivation by the MoD spokesman needed to be confronted with transparency of what was happening in real time.
Therefore my decision to show what was available elsewhere on the Internet.
Thus londonbear, no hypocrisy by the blogging community in these cases, but a healthy dose of skepticism and a primary goal to offer all available information for transparency. I have more questions over the UK mission and MoD press statements, than I have received in factual answers from them.
As far as your other statements about the UK media, the video of burning armored carrier and UK soldiers in flames, has been carried all over the press and TV networks.
Let’s not forget :: the horror of Iraq invasion and terror of Abu Ghraib!
Torture at Abu Ghraib ● by Seymour M. Hersh
It’s accountability that matters to seek political change in government.
▼ ▼ ▼
Yes the closer still pictures have now been shown but not the video in the UK media – as opposed to CNN which is US based. The video domestic stations are showing is the long distance shots of the top of the Warrior in flames. The later section of the soldiers jumping down in flames have not been shown domestically and at the time of writing my original the stills were not on line. The decision to not publish those was almost certainly self-denial so that relatives could be told of their condition.
My point about the pixillation was made on Kos in another diary and I am not particularly concerned with getting into a pissing contest of who actually first posted. I would however like to take you to task on a couple of observations about your posts that may or may not be justified.
The first is that you have an unfortunate tendency to make accusations about UK troops that are in the context of the US controlled areas rather than the UK controlled ones. With some disgraceful exceptions, the UK forces have at least tried to act with some considerable restraint in an attempt to gain co-operation. This certainly is opposition to the overt confrontation that appears to be promoted by senior US soldiers. It seems likely that the covert operation to get an impression of the feelings of the “street” in Basra was an alternative to a more provocative fully armoured patrol. They appear to have run into a legitimate police road block and ignored it in compliance with their standard orders. Those had been made because of the number of fake road blocks that were being operated by the various militia. The displays of the equipement found in the car corresponds with that you would expect such an undercover reconnaisance patrol to have. The headscarves and wigs were a bit pantomime but were probably convincing at a distance. On the other hand they were not wearing what one expects to be “traditional arab dress” as one early report had it. Still many posters are relying on these erroneous early reports to make accusations of covert planting of roadside bombs.
In another context, I have also observed that your postings include old reports that have already been superceded by more accurate later ones.
I am not so silly as to ignore the self-serving motives of those making statements, whether in Iraq or London. On the other hand I recognise both sides make such statements. In Basra obviously either police and/or militia sources made the false claims about explosives. Similarly the request for pixillation from the British Army for “family reasons” was immediately doubtful and indicative of SAS involvement. Sometimes discussions about topics are more productive if a sceptical approach is taken to statements made by both sides and judgement suspended until more facts are known.
.
I meant to discuss your diary, however …
when challenged by such accusations?
They appear to have run into a legitimate police road block and ignored it in compliance with their standard orders. Those had been made because of the number of fake road blocks that were being operated by the various militia. The displays of the equipement found in the car corresponds with that you would expect such an undercover reconnaisance patrol to have. The headscarves and wigs were a bit pantomime but were probably convincing at a distance. On the other hand they were not wearing what one expects to be “traditional arab dress” as one early report had it. Still many posters are relying on these erroneous early reports to make accusations of covert planting of roadside bombs.
In another context, I have also observed that your postings include old reports that have already been superceded by more accurate later ones.
Already some of the Iraqi facts, coming from the Interior Minister in Baghdad, discounts just about everything UK MoD has released to the press as their version of events, you so often see as fact.
BBC World Radio reporter Richard Galpin in Baghdad, after interview of Iraqi Minister of Interior within last hour ::
Incidents of past two days in Basra caused the deaths of 5 citizens.
● BBC News – Probe Into Incident
In London, the pictures of the violence made the war seem very real.
Video of the burning soldier in Basra was shown repeatedly yesterday on the BBC and other news stations but the photographs in newspapers seemed more haunting, showing a man frozen in flames.
The decision to invade Iraq was equally made by Tony Blair and George Bush.
Blair and Bush decided to falsify the facts before Parliament and Congress, and they shared equally the blame for the presentation of Colin Powell before the Security Council of the United Nations.
The illegal war and occupation, with all the deaths, torture of men and women at all prison facilities including Abu Ghraib, destroying by their actions the International Geneva Conventions – all responsibility is for both the United Kingdom and the United States.
The Dutch troops were in a province under command of British forces, I have followed their work closely and am quite satisfied with the results within the Iraqi community. The Dutch Government decided not to continue their participation in the Iraq occupation and concentrate their troops in Afghanistan under NATO and some Special Forces under US Command. My personal interpretation is the Dutch leaders were not willing to share responsibility in the evil acts of the US led war in Iraq.
▼ ▼ ▼
My point that all sources are misleading because of either the person giving the report (ie the spokesperson for the organisation) or the expected audience. The Al-jazeera piece you refer to reports that two people died in hospital after clashes between the police and British forces. In fact the situation was more complex. The British forces approached the police station/jail and a demonstration developed. The clash was between the British contingent and the demonstrators intitially but as soon as the petrol bombs were thrown by the crowd, a contingent of Iraqi police arrived who had crowd control equipment and placed themselves to protect the British. If you look at the long shots of the burning Warrior APC you will see them with riot shields on the left of the picture. I admit that I made a similar mistake when I first saw it and assumed they were British troops.
Bear in mind that the statement A-J quotes comes from the Iraqi Interior Minister who clearly has his own constituency to consider. Similary the British MoD has its own agenda as well. My suggestion is that neither should be completely relied upon but you should look at the available evidence and take into account analyses of it by different sources.
All the domestic coverage I have seen stops after the first soldier emerges from the Warrior. He has to avoid the flames but is not shown alight and gets to the ground. The later part of the video, which the “frozen in flames” picture either comes from or was taken at the same time, has not been shown domestically but only as far as I have seen on CNN. That shows closer pictures of I believe two further soldiers leaving the Warrior with their clothes fully alight. Now I have only fully watched reports on the BBC and Sky News, not Channel 4 or ITN but I have caught some of their coverage and the comment seems valid for them as well. Equally the footage could have been shown as it came into the newsroom but was later trimmed.
The same caution that I advised earlier should be taken into consideration when you look at some of the primary sources. Today’s demonstrations have been shown and I am reminded of the Saddam statue situation. At first it looks quite a crowd but if you carefully look at it you will find there is a fairly small group of probably under 100 people and two large banners on each side. Beyond those are a few on-lookers. I would suggest that despite the attention now being paid to these protests in the press, the actual number of participants is fairly limited.
Yes the capture of the two SAS (presumed) was almost certainly the result of a cock-up. Note that the line in the blog world has gone from them in a car loaded with explosives ready to be planted as a fake “insurgency bomb” and jumping a road block to them being identified whilst observing a demonstration. That actually ties in with the local British commander’s version of events that they had been sent out on reconnaisance.
You will remember similar confusion with the deMenezes killing at Stockwell. When it was first suggested (by a civilian “eye witness”) that he was wearing a thick padded jacket that could have concealed a bomb belt, we had blog entries along the lines “of course he was wearing a thick jacket, he came from Brazil”. Many of those same people called into question why the police claimed he was carrying a bomb when the pictures showed him in a light jeans material jacket. We also had speculation that he had been frightened by the poice guns as a reason for the reports of him jumping the ticket barrier. Again the same people questioned why the police thought he was suspicious when he used his season ticket normally and walked normally through the ticket hall.
That case is another where many bloggers have hypocritical double standards. They were quick to judge that the police had “executed” or “murdered” the man based on intial reports and speculation. At the same time if they had been accused of a crime they would demand due process. My own views on this has changed as a result of the further information that has come out over the weeks. On the available evidence, I am inclined to believe these were actually crimianal actions by one or two officers who got out of hand. While this does not rule out a subsequent attempt at a cover-up, it does not fit in with the allegations against the institution of criminal neglect. That could of course be because the information has been deliberately leaked in that way so that the individuals will be blamed. Until the final independent investigation is over, I will defer a final view on the matter. Unfortunately that is not good enough for many on here.
for those who are tasked with defending certain “operations” and policies. They do not have an easy job, whether the task at hand is explaining away US funded Israeli gunmen slaughtering someone’s child, British police murdering a guy on his way to work, or any tidbit of the smorgasbord of atrocities served up daily by the bestial horde of crusaders as they bludgeon, maraud and massacre their way through ancient lands for the glory of Halliburton et.al.
It is by nature a thankless task, as they are not allowed merely to preach to their choirs, but are sent into hostile territory where bloodlust levels are lower, into insurgent populations who defiantly refuse to properly dehumanize the target of the policy or operation or whatever name they choose to call the crime du jour.
Some undoubtedly believe so strongly in the ideals of the warlords they champion that no task is too difficult, and uphill climb is a joy.
But there are bound to be others whose inner life is destroyed by this job, whose reason rebels at the convolutions they are required to produce.
Many are not even paid, and even among those who do receive an honorarium, it seldom compares with that enjoyed by advertising writers, who only have to convince people to buy a wonderful new soap, even though the one their grandmother’s used gets things cleaner.
The SAS are involved in operations that are quite sticky. I think the media ought to exercise restraint and not show their faces out of concern for the families of these men. Their wives, girlfriends, daughters, sons, parents, siblings–all of their family members, in other words–are now exposed to danger. The SAS have many enemies both within and outside the United Kingdom…there are quite a few IRA still extant who would like to gain bloody revenge against ANY member of the SAS, and more than a few Moslem fundies in England who’d like to do the same.
Mind you, I’m not worried about the SAS chaps themselves. The SAS chose this life and its attendant risks. I’m worried about their innocent families.