In a stunning revelation that has caused a “furor” at the United Nations, The Times Online reports that the UN report on then assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafiq Hariri was edited prior to its release by a UN office:
THE United Nations withheld some of the most damaging allegations against Syria in its report on the murder of Rafik Hariri, the former Lebanese Prime Minister, it emerged yesterday.
The names of the brother of Bashar al-Assad, President of Syria, and other members of his inner circle, were dropped from the report that was sent to the Security Council.
The confidential changes were revealed by an extraordinary computer gaffe because an electronic version distributed by UN officials on Thursday night allowed recipients to track editing changes.
more…
One crucial change, apparently made after the report was submitted to the UN chief, removed the name of President al-Assad’s brother, Maher, his brother-in-law, Assef al-Shawkat, and other high-ranking Syrian officials.
The final, edited version quoted a witness as saying that the plot to kill Mr Hariri was hatched by unnamed “senior Lebanese and Syrian officials”. But the undoctored version named those officials as “Maher al-Assad, Assef Shawkat, Hassan Khalil, Bahjat Suleyman and Jamal al-Sayyed”.
The deleted names represent the inner core of the Syrian regime. Maher al-Assad, President al-Assad’s younger brother, is a lieutenant-colonel and head of the Presidential Guard. He is known for his quick tem- per and six years ago was said to have shot his brother-in-law, General Assef Shawkat, in the stomach during an altercation.
The lead investigator, Detlev Mehlis, has come to Annan’s defense claiming that he was not pressured to change or edit his report. In fact, he and his spokesperson said Mehlis was responsible for the edits describing this as an “unfortunate clerical error”.
Mehlis and U.N. chief spokesman Stephane Dujarric quickly insisted that the editing had been done by Mehlis himself and not by Annan, who had transmitted the report to the Security Council about seven hours after receiving it from Mehlis.
UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, already on shaky ground as a result of the UN Oil-For-Food scandal and despite the mea culpa by Mehlis, is sure to be a target of this “doctoring” by those who want to see him resign. Paging Norm Coleman…
Update [2005-10-22 2:46:12 by catnip]:: corrected the headline and body to reflect that the headline came from the Times Online, not The Independent.
I raised the Holy Shit! Terror Alert Level(tm) to red when I read The Independent’s version of the story but, upon futher sleuthing, I discovered Mehlis’s admission and then lowered the alert level to fushcia.
Surprisingly, Bolton seems nonplussed by the error and is focused on the content, calling this an “historic document”.
Hmmm…where have I heard that term before?
I guess there are different kinds of historic documents – some that affect the Holy Shit! level and some that don’t – like that August, 2001 PDB “Osama determined to strike in US”.
Sidebar: and who was there that day in August at the PDB? Harriet Miers.
of Mr. Mehlis’ opus.
I bet the former foreign minister of Niger will be able to provide invaluable documentation for the project.
And note, if one actually reads the details, that once the so-called scandalous edits are restored, the evidence points even more directly at the Asaad family.
This is a puzzling diary, catnip. The facts undercut your previous two diaries on this general subject of Syria, but you don’t seem to realize that.
Do you know anything about Syria? Do you know any Syrians? Do we have any reason to regard you as knowledgeable in this area beyond general blogging skills?
The two rating is for the title of your post alone, since I cannot definitively ascertain the tone of the rest of it from just words on a screen.
I don’t know who you are, but I’ve a feeling you’re not from around these parts — this time you get a 0. I only give warnings once.
question about this being a “safe place”??
It isn’t for people who are rude and insulting….
No. Here’s what you don’t get: you seem to think that I am sympathetic to Syria. I’m not. I am staunchly opposed to the Bush administration’s warmongering and their push to spread their wars into Syria. I am anti-war. Period.
Frankly, if you don’t like my diaries, don’t read them. If you want to present the knowledge you have about Syria and its people, write your own diaries.
You totally misread my last diary which was only a criticism of the press coverage as exposed by the headlines they used. You insulted me there and now you’ve come into this diary to do the same.
You have not backed up your claims against me with anything relevant to what I have posted – only assumptions of your part about where I stand on Syria. You need to read what I have written again with an open mind so you’ll be able to see that I’m not some Syrian sympathizer. Do that and then we’ll talk.
I didnt’ say you were sympathetic to Syria. A red herring.
You’re anti-war. So am I. That’s why I’m here.
“Totally misread” your last diary? I think not. The consensus agreed with me, including the great Meteor Blades. You didnt’ appear to understand any of the criticism.
I “have not backed up” my claims? Nuts.
You are the one who is not accurately reading or responding to what I’ve written. Here, for example, you make no substantive response whatsoever.
I will definitely stop reading and responding to your diaries, because I don’t think you are fair and reasonable, and you are WAY too defensive. Sheesh.
And apparently it’s true, since you did not respond, that you really don’t know any Syrians and really don’t know what you’re talking about on this topic.
Don’t confuse stating facts with being “defensive”.
By the way, the number one rule on this site is: Don’t be a prick.
As I understand it, the paper was reporting allegations against the named members of the Syrian security organisation. The names were withheld by the author on the grounds that they had been supplied by only one source and their involvement could not be verified.
In any case, the report was not intended to be a definitive assessment on what happened but to provide if you like a “case” against those accused of involvement.Perhaps the best analogy for the US would be to assume that an inditement from a Grand Jury means that the person is guilty. I wonder what Carl Rove et al would have to say about that.
Der Spiegel has an interesting story about Zuheir Mohammed al-Siddiq.
It appears he received a substantial honorarium for his help with the UN report, said help having been arranged by Syrian “dissidents.”
Maybe it is just a well-intentioned effort to help him get back on his feet after his legal troubles.
Below is a link to the Der Spiegel article for those who speak German, and a babelfish translation for those whose German is worse than babelfish’s.
Sounds a little like a “Curveball” if my German is what it used to be.
Latin. German. Indian open-sourced prosthetics. Always an education my friend. Always. 🙂
So is this a case where we need to start singin the Who: “We won’t be fooled again.” They can’t fall for another Iraq bullshit excuse for war can they? Are we this fucking stupid. Thanks for this DF. Would have never read in in American press, I think.
So what is a Der Speigel anyway. Is that like a falafel? Seriously, though. It permeates my consciousness on the periphary. But is it like Time Magizine in Germany — or more toward the National Enquirer side of the spectrum.
Yours in the relatively uninformed heartland of America,
Spiegel means “mirror.”
Now I expect lurkers who work at other German papers to sprain their fingers flaming me to say that their paper is so much more major than Der Spiegel.
I just hope they will call me interesting names so we can all learn new words.