Letter to Michael Gordon, NYT re "Hezbollah Trains Iraqis in Iran, Officials Say "

Also see UPDATES below.

Hezbollah Trains Iraqis in Iran, Officials Say

I'm just wondering why the NYT still insists on publishing material based on claims by an unnamed "American official", which are themselves the result supposedly of "interrogation reports", bearing in mind a) your newspaper's (and your own personal) responsibility in propagating lies put out by unnamed American officials which contributed towards deceiving public opinion prior to the illegal war of agression on Iraq, and b) your country's reputation concerning 'interrogation' - Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca, CIA 'black sites', etc. - in fact, torture, whose only real use is to provide 'false' confessions (the person being 'interrogated' will tell his interrogators anything they wish to hear in order to stop the pain).

You then further insult the intelligence of your readers with this paragraph:

"The official summed up the information from the interrogation reports but did not make them available. He declined to be identified because the information had not been released publicly."

Wasn't he just releasing the information publicly? What a shame he didn't make the report available, isn't it? Would have stopped any doubts at all, wouldn't it? So why didn't he?

You also quote "a senior Iraqi government spokesman", who is mentioned by name: Ali al-Dabbagh. But you fail to mention this bit however: "Asked about reports that some rockets made in 2007 or 2008 and seized in raids against militias were directly supplied by Iran, al-Dabbagh replied: "There is no conclusive evidence." (1)

And further, according to the UK's Sunday Times "British officials believe the US military tends to overestimate the effect of the Iranian involvement in Iraq." (2)

You also state "It is not known if the delegation confronted its Iranian hosts with the information, or how the Iranians responded."

However, according to AP: "A five-member Iraqi delegation returned Saturday from Tehran where they held meetings aimed at halting the suspected Iranian aid to militiamen. One of the meetings was with Gen. Ghassem Soleimani, commander of the Quds Force, an elite unit of Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps that has been accused of training and funneling weapons to Shiite extremists in Iraq. The Iraqi delegation was said to have carried documents and other material implicating the Quds Force in supplying weapons and training Shiite fighters...According to officials familiar with the meeting, the delegation received a frosty reception from Soleimani, who questioned the origin of the documents." (1)

Exactly, where did they come from?

Finally, the Sunday Times also tells us via unnamed 'western intelligence sources' that the "US military is drawing up plans for a “surgical strike” against an insurgent training camp inside Iran". (2)

My goodness, what a coincidence! So that's what its all about, of course, the release of unsubstantiated claims masquerading as fact in order to pave the way for yet another agression on a sovereign state. And there you are Mr Gordon, right in the middle, playing your part in these psyops.

As for your 'proof' of Hezbollah involvement, this again rests on information gained after the person in question refused to talk but "eventually acknowledged under questioning".

What kind of questioning would that have been Mr. Gordon? With dogs, drugs, waterboarding? Do you even care?

This kind of gutter 'journalism' should have been cleaned out of the NYT a long time ago, along with the other fantasists Jason Blair and Judith Miller.

(1) "Iraqi official says Iran arms evidence not conclusive" SAMEER N. YACOUB AP News May 04, 2008 13:10 EST

(2) "United States is drawing up plans to strike on Iranian insurgency camp" Michael Smith, The Sunday Times May 4, 2008

UPDATE:

Even more intriguing is why Gordon insisted on not revealing the name of the American official when it is to be found in other reports, such as AP and Fox News. Habit?

Unnamed American official named by Press TV

""We have multiple detainees who state Lebanese Hezbollah are providing training to Iraqis in Iranian IRGC-QF training camps near Tehran," Air Force Colonel Donald Bacon, a US military spokesman, alleged on Monday. "We have captured other Iraqis who have discussed their training in Iran and who state many of their instructors were Lebanese Hezbollah," the Associated Press quoted Bacon as saying."

UPDATE II:

Check out these other articles all in the same vein:

Chris Floyd
Death's Factotum: Michael Gordon and the Times Pour Pentagon Poison into Nation's Ear

"Judith Miller might have been the poster child for the corporate media's collaboration with the Bush Administration's war of aggression against Iraq -- but her New York Times colleague and co-writer, Michael Gordon, was every bit as culpable and complicit, happily playing stovepipe to the bloodthirsty bullshit gurgling up from the White House and Pentagon cesspits.Miller is gone from the mainstream heights, but Gordon soldiers on at the Times -- literally. Although he is probably not paid directly by the Bush Regime to peddle their propaganda, he serves precisely the same function as the military brass that the Administration embedded as "independent analysts" on the network news shows -- a nefarious practice most recently exposed in great detail by...the New York Times."

Greg Mitchell at Editor & Publisher
'NYT' vs McClatchy on Iran's Link to Iraqi Insurgents

"Michael Gordon, the military writer for The New York Times who contributed several false stories about Iraqi WMD in the runup to the U.S. attack on Iraq in 2002, has written several articles in the past year about Iran’s alleged training of Iraqi insurgents -- or supplying them with weapons to kill Americans. He produced another major report on this subject for today’s Times – based solely on unnamed sources -- which is at odds with an account from McClatchy’s Baghdad bureau. "

Glenn Greenwald
Who needs Dana Perino when you have the NYT's Michael Gordon?

"As usual with Gordon's articles, nothing is done here other than uncritically repeating Bush administration claims under the cover of anonymity. Virtually every paragraph in this article is nothing more a mindless recitation of uncorroborated assertions which he copies from Bush officials and then weaves into a news narrative, with the phrase "American officials say" tacked on at the end or the phrase "according to officials" unobtrusively interspersed in the middle,"


Juan Cole
How Important is Iranian/ Hizbullah Training

"I am suspicious of this story not because it is necessarily untrue (how would I know?) but because it shares with typical Bush administration propaganda the 'gotcha' technique in which questions of proportionality, significance and causality do not arise.
...
Under torture, Ibn al-Sheikh Libi told the US that Saddam was training al-Qaeda operatives in the use of poison gas. It was a lie. That is the problem with putting people in so much pain that they will tell you anything. Cheney and Rice parroted this falsehood over and over again.
...
The Pentagon story about Iran is fishy for these reasons:

The main pro-Iran militia in Iraq is the Badr Corps of the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq. Iran is happy with Badr's vast influence. Badr has conflicts with the Mahdi Army. Why should Iran undermine its own client by favoring the latter? And note that the US never condemns Badr, which until recently was actually part of the Iranian military until recently.

The information on the supposed Hizbullah training in Iran seems to have come from two or three captured Lebanese Shiites. That is a very small number. The US has 24,000 accused insurgents in captivity. If it only has a handful of Lebanese Shiites, then they just aren't very important. The Principle of Proportionality holds.

Moreover, the allegations may have been produced by US torture of the captives and so may not be reliable.Then even if it were true, how important is it? The Mahdi Army is tens of thousands of slum kids. Sadrism goes back to the 1990s in Iraq and is a mass movement. Iran had nothing to do with them historically. Moreover, how important is all this? Have, like, 4 Lebanese guys really trained all that many Mahdi Army militiamen? How many exactly? How much more effective would they be as a result? Wouldn't the political support of millions of Iraqi Shiites in the South really be the source of Muqtada al-Sadr's power and authority?

What is being alleged is too small to produce a really big, nation-wide effect in Iraq. The Mahdi Army fought the US military for two long hard months in spring of 2004, and for another month in August. Iran was not around.Occam's Razor dictates that we do not need Iran as a hypothesis for explaining the Sadr Movement or its activities in Iraq. Behind the scenes opinion polling suggests that the Sadr Movement has become more and more popular with the electorate. This, despite Iran's having helped buy the election for the Islamic Supreme Council of Iraq in 2005. Having gotten their clients in power, why would Iran now try to blow up Badr commanders who have become provincial governors or deputy governors.

The Sadrists are not even very strong in Basra city, which is one reason al-Maliki attacked them there. Iran was backing Badr in Basra.If training is so important, then why does the Mahdi Army still defeat the highly trained and equipped Iraqi Army, which has had lots more training, often from high powered American and European and Jordanian trainers. Are you saying Iranian trainers are better? How would you fix that?So, have a few hundred militiamen maybe gotten some basic guerrilla training from fellow Shiites somewhere? That isn't the right question. The question is, how significant would that be if true. Remember, they are getting real time battle experience against US Marines, which is much more valuable than mere rudimentary boot camp. But, how could you rule it out? And, could such a thing really steer the fortunes of Iraq as a country? I think not."

Letter to the International Herald Tribune

In reply to the article by Alison Smale in the IHT "'Magic is over' for U.S., says French foreign minister" yesterday:

Sir,

In Alison Smale's article, she makes at least two statements which are highly controversial and neither make any mention of the opposing interpretation needed to maintain a balanced approach:

Firstly, she refers to the canard that "Mahmoud Ahmadinejad...has called for the destruction of Israel". As scholars such as Juan Cole and British journalist Jonathan Steele have pointed out "The fact that he compared his desired option - the elimination of "the regime occupying Jerusalem" - with the fall of the Shah's regime in Iran makes it crystal clear that he is talking about regime change, not the end of Israel." According to Cole, "Ahmadinejad did not say he was going to 'wipe Israel off the map' because no such idiom exists in Persian". Instead, "He did say he hoped its regime, i.e., a Jewish-Zionist state occupying Jerusalem, would collapse." The Iranans have also denied any intention to 'destroy' Israel, but there is no balancing Iranian remark to this effect nor is there any comment by a neutral party in the article and this proves the bias.

Secondly, she paraphrases Palestinian President Abbas: "which he accused of committing a coup". Again this is an opinion from one party to the conflict, and again in balanced journalism both sides' point of view should be produced, or at the very least a comment from a neutral party. This gives the appearance of bias, in short, propaganda especially considering the latest exposé by David Rose in Vanity Fair reported in the Guardian thus "The Bush administration, caught out by the rise of Hamas, embarked on a secret project for the armed overthrow of the Islamist government in Gaza". This was also suspected at the time by both the NYT and the Guardian.

I know in this day and age that one is unlikely to encounter fair and balanced journalism in the US press. This is just more proof.

Yours Sincerely

E-mail to the US State Dept re "U.S. may add Venezuela to list of terrorist states"

Yesterday McClatchy Newspapers published an article entitled "U.S. may add Venezuela to list of terrorist states" in which we were told

"The Bush administration has launched a preliminary legal inquiry that could land Venezuela on the U.S. list of nations that support terrorism, following reports of close Venezuelan links with Colombian rebels, a senior government official has confirmed...
The legal review comes after Colombia captured four computers belonging to a guerrilla leader in a March 1 raid into Ecuador."

The article then states "The documents suggest the Venezuelan government was in the process of providing $300 million to the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, or FARC."

Firstly, the 'documents' do no such thing, and secondly, as anyone who is even half computer literate knows, once someone is possession of someone else's laptop they can alter any document they wish and if you are asking me to trust the Columbian government and armed forces then either you are naive in the extreme or seriously intellectually-challenged.

The article continued:

"The U.S. and Colombian governments and the European Union have officially designated FARC as a terrorist organization, but Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez has said publicly that he considers it a legitimate insurgency." Right and could someone please tell me why the US designation is supposed to be accepted by all countries?

"A senior U.S. official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the delicate nature of the subject, said government lawyers had been asked to clarify "what goes into effect in terms of prohibitions, or prohibited activities," with the state sponsor designation." In other words will they still be able to receive oil imports or will they have to conduct yet another illegal regime change operation that will provoke yet another genocide?

"The official was reluctant to predict if the FARC computer discoveries will lead to sanctions, noting U.S. investigators first must corroborate their veracity." Quite. The first intelligent thing anyone has said.

Anyway, here is e-mail I sent off to the US State Dept. this morning. I don't expect a reply of course, although if I suddenly disappear and cease to blog you'll know who's got me...I've never been to the Caribbean...

"Sirs,

I read an article in McClatchy Newspapers today saying that the "Bush administration has launched a preliminary legal inquiry that could land Venezuela on the U.S. list of nations that support terrorism".

I was wondering how this can be, considering the definition of terrorism used by the State Dept, which refers exclusively to "subnational groups or clandestine agents". (Source: Patterns of Global Terrorism. Washington: Dept. of State, 2001: vi)

If, however, one takes the definition as described in the US Code TITLE 18 > PART I > CHAPTER 113B > § 2331 as being the correct definition, then why has the USA itself not been added to the list and the CIA declared a terrorist organisation?

Considering all the facts in the public domain about the actions of that organisation, the CIA, there can be no doubt that it fits the description perfectly of a terrorist organisation, and consequently the country that controls, finances and gives it its orders must also be considered a nation that supports terrorism."

The Times' deceipt continues

Opinion masquerading as fact yet again. Today, Wednesday 05 March 2008, the Times has an article on the Spanish elections and the second televised debate. The only problem is: the headline says one thing, the article another.

There is no proof whatsoever to back up the claim in the headline that Zapatero's support is faltering, and indeed in the text or body of the article there is no evidence presented to substantiate such a claim. It's the author's (or more likely the editor's) wishful thinking...

This is outright deceipt aimed at those who don't have enough time to read everything and who skim the headlines.

There is a further error of fact in the article, which claims that "The opposition leader (Rajoy)...accused him (Zapatero) of insulting the victims of Eta".

In fact, Rajoy used the word 'agredir', which doesn't mean to insult, it means to assault or physically attack. One would have hoped that a Times correspondent could at least understand the language of the country he's reporting on...or God forbid, he wouldn't mistranslate on purpose would he?

Iran wants world ban on nuclear weapons

This Iranian position reveals the US and British deceipt in its accusations that Iran has a nuclear weapons programme, and that both countries have been using their not insignificant power on the Security Council to ridicule an international treaty such as the NPT.

There is no doubt that the US/UK tactics and planning are clever and cunning. They are also immoral, illegal and based on lies as usual. Hypocrisy pure and simple.

The Supreme Leader of Iran, who is the real power in Iran not the President, issued a fatwa several years ago now banning research, production and use of nuclear weapons. The current Iranian regime has always maintained it is not interested in nuclear weapons, as even the Israeli press have acknowledged:

"In an interview with Time Magazine Ahmadinejad said "We are opposed to nuclear weapons. We think it has been developed just to kill human beings. It is not in the service of human beings.""Today nuclear weapons are a blunt instrument ... The Zionist regime is not capable of using nuclear weapons. Problems cannot be solved through bombs. Bombs are of little use today" he added."

There is NO proof they have a weapons programme in spite of 'evidence' supplied by an Iranian terrorist organisation and conveniently 'believed' by the US.

And how do the positions square up? Well, one side (Iran) has consistently stated that nuclear weapons are evil and must be erradicated from - not just the Middle East - but the entire world, while the other side (US/UK) have been steadily increasing development of their own new nuclear weapons, supporting the spread of nuclear weapons in countries with 'friendly' regimes (Israel, India & Pakistan), while negating the 'inherent' right of just one country (Iran) to have its own nuclear fuel cycle which at the end of the day is a declaration of energy independence which the US/UK cannot tolerate. Indeed, when Iran was ruled by the US-installed dictator puppet the Shah, the US government and its arch-genocidal criminal Kissinger, actively supported Iran's push for nuclear technology.

As FPIF reported last year: "A declassified document from President Gerald Ford's administration, for which Kissinger was Secretary of State, supported Iran's push for nuclear power. The document noted that Tehran should "prepare against the time--about 15 years in the future--when Iranian oil production is expected to decline sharply."

Interesting to note too that according to the Washington Post "Cheney, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and outgoing Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz held key national security posts when the Ford administration made the opposite argument 30 years ago"..."that Iran's nuclear program must be a cover for bomb-making".

Agence France-Presse:
"IRAN wants to ban all nuclear weapons through an international treaty, the country's foreign minister said at the UN's Conference on Disarmament.
"The time has come to ban and eliminate all nuclear weapons," Manouchehr Mottaki told the conference.
The UN Security Council on Monday slapped another round of sanctions on Iran over its refusal to suspend nuclear enrichment activities, while in Vienna, the International Atomic Energy Agency attempted to convince Tehran to cooperate.
Western states have accused Tehran of pursuing a nuclear program under cover of energy production, a charge it has firmly denied.
Iran's foreign minister said during Tuesday's meeting in Geneva that it is necessary to "start negotiations to reach a convention on the ban of stocks and the production of nuclear weapons and weapons of mass destruction".
During the conference, he questioned the right of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council to possess nuclear arms.
"The winners of the Second World War have claimed this right and imposed it on the international community," he said.
"Today, the right of veto and the right to possess nuclear arms has become a monetary exchange to obtain illegitimate rights," he added.
Iran, which confirmed that it had launched its first rocket to space February 4, also supported a proposal from Russia and China to ban weapons in space.
The project, which was presented on February 12 by Russia during the Conference on Disarmament, suggested banning the deployment of all types of arms in space. The US has opposed such a treaty.
The UN Conference on Disarmament brokered key Cold War accords such as the Non-Proliferation Treaty and the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, but has made scant progress over the last decade as the 65 members remain at odds on future priorities."

Message to Israeli Ambassador, Madrid

Israel’s aerial bombing in the centre of a densely-populated city is an illegal means of warfare; it is clear that these attacks will directly cause civilian casualties and damage to civilian property and infrastructure.

The targeting of schools, clinics and ministries is a war crime. These attacks are part of the ongoing collective punishment of the occupied civilian population of Gaza; this includes the restricting fuel, electricity, food, medical, and humanitarian supplies – resulting in humanitarian crisis. Since the start of 2008, 132 Gazans have been killed in Israeli attacks; it is estimated that over 44 civilians have died as a result of being denied access to medical care.

Mr. Ambassador. This is not only a genocide but a 'shoa' as one of your ministers threatened the other day. As PM Abbas has stated, in fact it is worse than a holocaust. Instead of defending the indefensible crime of intentionally killing children and babies, why are you not calling for an end to your governments cynical operation.

The good news is that the world over ordinary citizens like myself have been woken up to your countries repulsive crimes and as each Palestinian baby dies you lose more support the world over. One day your criminal regime will be over and criminals such as yourself will be paying for your crimes. Where is your God in all of this? Nowehere. You sir are criminal scum.

Letter to the Editor, International Herald Tribune

Sir,

In his opinion piece about Kosovo dated 13 February 2008 and entitled "Cohen: Here comes Kosovo", Roger Cohen states:

"Slobodan Milosevic, the late dictator, set Serbia's murderous nationalist tide in motion on April 24, 1987, when he went to Kosovo to declare that Serbian
"ancestors would be defiled" if ethnic Albanians had their way."

I would be grateful if Roger Cohen could give his source for this as Diana Johnstone states categorically:

"I don't know where Roger Cohen got that quotation, but it is not to be found in the speech Milosevic made that day in Kosovo. And certainly, Milosevic did not go to Kosovo to declare any such thing, but to consult with local Communist League officials in the town of Kosovo Polje about the province's serious economic and social problems."

Considering US newsapers have had problems in the recent past with their reporters making up stories with false sources, Roger Cohen needs to provide his source for this statement.

Yours Sincerely

US takes over management team for Hariri Special Tribunal

A UN Press release from Wednesday 13 Feb 2008 states:

"The following statement was issued today by the Spokesperson for the UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon:

The Secretary-General today established the Management Committee of the Special Tribunal for Lebanon. This Committee, which will inter alia, provide advice and policy direction on all non-judicial aspects of the operations of the Special Tribunal and review and approve its annual budget, is composed of the main donors to the Tribunal."

So who are the main donors? Well we just didn't know until the Daily Star in Lebanon published this piece yesterday:

"Ban creates management team for Special Tribunal"

In the article, which reported on the above statement, we find that 2 days before making this statement, Germany announced it would extend $1 million for the Special Tribunal for Lebanon, and the day after the UN announcement, the US doubled its contribution:

"The United States also announced on Thursday that it is doubling to $14 million its contribution to the Tribunal."

The chtutzpah of Rice is astounding as she declared: "We hope the Tribunal will help deter further political assassinations, end an era of fear for Lebanese citizens and impunity for the perpetrators of these crimes, and help protect the sovereignty of Lebanon".

I say chutzpah because, according to today's Sunday Times, Israel is behind 6 other car bombings in the Middle East since August 2002 which have "taken out" 'militants':

"December 2002 Ramzi Nahara, Israeli agent who defected to Hezbollah and planned attacks against Israel. Dagan knew him personally. Killed in Lebanon by car bomb

March 2003 Abu Mohammed Al-Masri, Al-Qaeda member building cell to target Israeli border with Lebanon. Killed by car bomb in Lebanon

August 2003 Ali Hussein Saleh, Hezbollah explosives expert. Killed by car bomb in Beirut

July 2004 Ghaleb Awali, Hezbollah official with links to activists in Gaza Strip. Killed by car bomb in Beirut

September 2004 Izz el-Deen al-Sheikh Khalil, Hamas official liaising between headquarters in Syria and members in Gaza and West Bank. Killed by car bomb in Damascus

May 2006 Mahmoud Majzoub, Islamic Jihad official liaising with Hezbollah. Killed by car bomb blast in Lebanon "

The total now stands at 5 car bombings in the Lebanon and 2 in Syria. So just who are the real experts in assassinations using car bombs?

Curious also that there were no 'militants' killed by car bombs in the Lebanon between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005 or at later dates.

Why is that curious? Because according to UNSC Resolution 1757, the "Agreement on the establishment of the Tribunal states that, if the court finds that other attacks that occurred in Lebanon between 1 October 2004 and 12 December 2005, or any later date decided by the Parties, and with the consent of the Council, are connected in […] and are of a nature and gravity similar to the attack on Mr. Hariri, the Tribunal “shall also have jurisdiction over persons responsible for such attacks”. That connection includes, but is not limited to, a combination of the following elements: criminal intent (motive), the purpose behind the attacks, the nature of the victims targeted, the pattern of the attacks (modus operandi) and the perpetrators.

The Israelis need not worry though, UNSC 1757 also states that this is subject to "the consent of the Security Council", and we all know who controls that...

Meanwhile, Israeli newspaper Jerusalem Post boasts of how it got the BBC to apologise "for equating former Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri and Hizbullah terror chief Imad Mughniyeh as "great national leaders", in what it describes as "an uncommon act of journalistic contrition".

Just shows where the power really lies. The BBC have difficulty in even acknowledging ML letters, while they bend over for the Israelis...



Further info and links:

FACTSHEET: The Special Tribunal for Lebanon

Special Tribunal for Lebanon

Yet another official complaint to the BBC

It seems that once again the BBC's (and the rest of the British media's) pro-Israeli bias knows no bounds.

After having to put up with article after article on the BBC website referring to the dubious claims that the Iranian President threatened to wipe Israel 'off the map' (1), we now have the case that the Israeli interior minister, Meir Sheetrit, has said that the IDF should "wipe out a neighborhood" of Gaza, in effect committing a war crime for inciting collective punishment.

However, if we were to get our news solely from the BBC we would probably not know anything beyond "The Israeli interior minister, Meir Sheetrit, said the army should choose a neighbourhood of Gaza, give its residents a day to leave, and then destroy it.". (2)

However, the chances are slim as this is literally hidden away in the last paragraph of the article - a favourite ploy used by western news corporations to hide embarrasing news.

Here are his full remarks:

"The heads of Hamas must pay the price. Hamas doesn't understand any other language; the problem is we are talking to them in English instead of in Arabic. They only understand [the language of force]. The situation at present doesn't make sense; every other country faced with rockets on its citizens would go in and destroy the area. We should warn the [Arabs in Gaza] in advance, give them a day's notice, and then wipe out a neighborhood. We should also hit their leaders, regardless of who or what they are."(3)

As you can see, this Israeli politician and Cabinet Minister is calling for whole areas of Gaza to be "wiped out". This fits the definition of terrorism: "The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence against people or property to coerce or intimidate governments or societies, often to achieve political, religious, or ideological objectives. (JCS Pub 1-02)" (4) Indeed, the Terrorism Act 2000 defines terrorism in the first section of the Act, as follows (5):

Section 1. -
(1) In this Act "terrorism" means the use or threat of action where-
(a) the action falls within subsection (2),
(b) the use or threat is designed to influence the government [or an international governmental organisation] or to intimidate the public or a section of the public, and
(c) the use or threat is made for the purpose of advancing a political,
religious or ideological cause.
(2) Action falls within this subsection if it-
(a) involves serious violence against a person,
(b) involves serious damage to property,
(c) endangers a person's life, other than that of the person committing the action,
(d) creates a serious risk to the health or safety of the public or a section of the public, or
(e) is designed seriously to interfere with or seriously to disrupt an electronic system.
(3) The use or threat of action falling within subsection (2) which involves the use of firearms or explosives is terrorism whether or not subsection (1)(b) is satisfied.

If the Iranian foreign minister had suggested part of Tel Aviv should be "wiped out", it most certainly would not be slipped into the last paragraph of a story titled "Ahmedinejad urges calm". Instead a whole story would be generated around his statement.

Surely, in balanced news reporting, the same weight needs to be given to similar 'threats' from both sides? This case case shows that the same weight is not being provided in BBC coverage. If an official 'enemy' makes an aggressive statement, the hype is there for all to see, but if an official 'friend' makes a similar statement its buried at the bottom of an unrelated article or not reported at all - there is not one word about this in any of the British 'quality' dailies, Guardian, Times, Telegraph or Independent.

Links:
(1) BBC search results for Iran "wiped off the map"
(2) Olmert urges calm after strikes BBC Online Last Updated: Sunday, 10 February 2008, 11:49 GMT
(3) Sderot Mayor & Minister Sheetrit: Wipe Out Gaza Neighborhoods Arutz Sheva Israel National News Published: 02/10/08, 11:30 AM
Sheetrit: 'IDF should wipe out parts of Gaza' Jerusalem Post Feb 11, 2008 0:05 Updated Feb 12, 2008 5:07
IDF to step up Gaza assassinations Haaretz Tue., February 12, 2008
Sheetrit: We should level Gaza neighborhoods YnetNews.com Published: 02.10.08, 13:38
(4) Glossary GlobalSecurity.org
(5) Terrorism Act 2000

Reuters: stenographers to power

Reading the headline this morning and my immediate reaction was a scoffing chortle. The headline read "U.S. military loses records for bin Laden's driver".

The Reuters article gave the details:

"GANTANAMO BAY U.S. NAVAL BASE, Cuba (Reuters) - The U.S. military has lost a year's worth of records describing the Guantanamo confinement of Osama bin Laden's driver, a prosecutor said at the Yemeni captive's war court hearing on Thursday.
Lawyers for the driver, Salim Ahmed Hamdan, asked for the records to support their argument that prolonged isolation and harassment at the Guantanamo prison have mentally impaired him and could affect his ability to aid in his defense against war crimes charges.
"All known records have been produced with the exception of the 2002 Gitmo records," one of the prosecutors, Navy Lt. Cmdr. Timothy Stone, told the court. "They can't find it."
He said the military was still looking for the records kept at the remote U.S. naval base in southeast Cuba, which he referred to by its nickname.
The chief prosecutor, Army Col. Larry Morris, said all of Hamdan's interrogation records were given to the defense at least a year ago and that the missing 2002 documents are "local detention records that deal with issues of confinement such as diet, exercise, hygiene and the location of the detainee" within the camp.
Defense lawyers contend there are still records missing, including some that would show Hamdan was coerced into making some statements that could be used as evidence against him."

Several things struck me immediately. This is a claim by the prosecutors, not a fact. So why is the word 'lost' not in inverted commas? Obviously its not a direct quote so it shouldn't be in double inverted commas: "lost", but grammatically speaking (and I'm an English teacher), it should at the very least have single inverted commas which denotes it as being used in an unusual way: in other words it is claimed as 'lost' .

I sent off a letter to the Reuters editors, and am awaiting a reply. It could be a long wait...The letter referred to the universal habit in western main stream media (MSM) of always treating claims by governments and military as gospel truth, rather than the interested claims they really are, and taking into consideration the record of proven lies in which they have been caught time after time in the past.

Finally! An American newspaper that has broached the subject, albeit fleetingly. The LA Times has this headline: "Attacks up sharply on Iraqis aiding U.S."

The article went further:

"Attacks on Iraqi security volunteers...have doubled since October, the U.S. military said Thursday."

What it doesn't spell out is what this actually means. Well, actually that's not strictly true. The LA Times does give the US miltary's thoughts on what it means, and by the same process as referred to above on the Reuters piece treats these 'views' as facts:

"The U.S. military says the rising attacks are a sign that Sunni Muslim militants feel squeezed by the grassroots security program".

Well its one interpretation. Another, mine, is that it is yet more proof that there is no religious civil war in Iraq as claimed, rather attacks by Iraqis on Iraqis are the same as attacks by the French resistance on French supporters and members of the Vichy government: against collaborators of the invaders...

Its the legal resistance to a brutal occupation resulting from an illegal and aggressive invasion - itself the "supreme crime".

Another report from Reuters tells us that the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Louise Arbour, told a news conference in Mexico City that the controversial interrogation technique known as waterboarding and used by the United States, qualifies as torture:

"I would have no problems with describing this practice as falling under the prohibition of torture".

The article continues:

"Arbour made her comment in response to a question about whether U.S. officials could be tried for the use of waterboarding that referred to CIA director Michael Hayden telling Congress Tuesday his agency had used waterboarding on three detainees captured after the Sept. 11 attacks.
"Violators of the U.N. Convention against Torture should be prosecuted under the principle of 'universal jurisdiction' which allows countries to try accused war criminals from other nations, Arbour said.
"There are several precedents worldwide of states exercising their universal jurisdiction ... to enforce the torture convention and we can only hope that we will see more and more of these avenues of redress," Arbour said."
"Arbour referred to an arrest warrant issued in 1998 by a Spanish judge for former Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet, who died in 2006, on charges of torture, murder and kidnapping in the years that followed his 1973 coup.
Latin American dictatorships in the 1970s and 1980s were known to use waterboarding on political prisoners."

Spain is one of the most active countries in this respect. They are excercising their universial jurisdiction to bring to trial torturers and murderes from the Argentinian military dictatorship as well as Chile, and there are also several genocide investigations open too, such as those in Guatemala, Rwanda and Tibet.

Bad news from AP: "Germany drops CIA kidnap investigation"! The reason? They saw no prospect of achieving results.

"Prosecutors said they had been unable to establish the identity of the pilot or others on the plane, and also could not determine whether anyone at Ramstein, in western Germany, was involved.
"They said Nasr himself says he is "not able to identify the pilot or other members of the crew."
"U.S. authorities for their part were not prepared to give the corresponding information and contribute to clearing up the matter," they added in a statement, noting that Italian prosecutors were unsuccessful in seeking U.S. legal assistance.
"German prosecutors said they had dropped the investigation against persons unknown "because further investigative approaches that would promise success are not apparent."

And finally, the stupidest comment of the week comes from British Conservative MP Julian Lewis (the Shadow Defence Minister no less). Not only that but Lewis has some curious friends. According to the Guardian, Lewis is a 'friend' of Paul Mercer, named by CAAT as a Bae spy, and was one of those who voted for the illegal invasion of Iraq and as such will be a defendant in any future torture and genocide cases brought before the courts. On the secret extradition from Zimbabwe to Equitorial Guinea of the British mercenary Simon Mann and his imminent trial this criminal Lewis had this to say:

"Quiet diplomacy has failed and we now have to save this man, whatever he has and hasn't done, from torture and a horrible death."

If only he applied this universally and not just for fellow British criminals.