<http://www.themoderatevoice.com/posts/1110175235.shtml>
The Moderate Voice
Wounded Italian Journalist: Victim Of Conspiracy Or Polemecist?
by Joe Gandelman
The gloves have come off in the incident involving the wounding of Italian
journalist Giuliana Sgrena and the death of an Italian security agent by
U.S. forces.
She's now flatly suggesting that maybe U.S. forces in effect were out to
assassinate her. Each statement Sgrena has made has been stronger, more
accusatory, and more political as you can see from the updated AP version
of this story, which is rapidly turning into a political football with pro
and anti-war advocates taking sides according to their beliefs on the war:
ROME - Left-wing journalist Giuliana Sgrena claimed American soldiers gave
no warning before they opened fire and said Sunday she could not rule out
that U.S. forces intentionally shot at the car carrying her to the Baghdad
airport, wounding her and killing the Italian agent who had just won her
freedom after a month in captivity.
Intentionally is a PRETTY BIG allegation...even if it's couched in language
to allow some "wiggle" room. There is more:
An Italian Cabinet member urged Sgrena, who writes for a communist
newspaper that routinely opposes U.S. policy in Iraq to be cautious in her
accounts and said the shooting would not affect Italy's support for the
Bush administration.
The White House called the shooting a "horrific accident" and restated its
promise to investigate fully.
Sgrena's editor at the daily Il Manifesto, Gabriele Polo, said Italian
officials told him 300-400 rounds were fired at the car. Italian military
officials said two other intelligence agents were wounded in the shooting;
U.S. officials said only one other agent was hurt.
Without backing up the claim, Sgrena said she believed it was possible she
was targeted because the United States objected to methods used to secure
her release.
"The fact that the Americans don't want negotiations to free the hostages
is known," the 56-year-old journalist told Sky TG24 television by
telephone, her voice hoarse and shaky. "The fact that they do everything to
prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held
hostage, everybody knows that. So I don't see why I should rule out that I
could have been the target."
Sgrena said she knew nothing about a ransom payment, and no details have
emerged about how authorities won her release. An Italian Cabinet minister
said money likely changed hands.
Meanwhile, the new website Watching America (see post below) carries this
translation of an inflammatory article in Corriere Della Sera:
ROME - You must be careful, because they want to kill to you." These were
the words of Giuliana Sgrena's kidnappers before they freed her. Pier
Scolari, companion of Giuliana Sgrena, recounted the words of the
journalist. "Giuliana had the information.The American soldiers did not
want her to leave with her life."
"The American soldiers prevented help from arriving for some minutes - and
they prevented anyone from approaching the car," Sgrena told Scolari.
Sources within Italian intelligence [SISMI] do not support this
hypothesis. "We cannot exclude the possibility that the Americans wanted to
kill Giuliana Sgrena, but they would not, however, have wanted to kill a
SUSMI agent, which puts at risk cooperation between the U.S. and Italian
intelligence services."
If Scolari's hypothesis is true, according to Italian intelligence, it was
badly handled. "It would have been the simplest thing for the Americans to
send their agents to suppress the incident and therefore blame the Iraqis,
or to send Iraqis to perform the dirty job, rather than commit the act with
friendly fire without even succeeding in the attempt."
A transcript of her interview with the BBC is here. Also, the Observer
gives some info on reports that a hefty ransom was, in fact, paid to free
her:"Italian newspapers reported yesterday that Sgrena had been in the
hands of former Saddam loyalists and criminals, and that a ransom of
between �4 million and �5 million had been paid for her release."
What is happening now?
* Italy's leftist parties are using this to demand Italy pull its
troops out of Iraq. The Italian government has no plans to do so but has
had to scramble "to contain the damage to itself and to US-Italian
relations," the Financial Times reports.
* The issue is a huge one in Italy. The dead bodyguard's body is
being honored with an elaborate funeral. Italians have been filing past his
coffin.
* The issue is going to be completely exploited for propaganda
purposes by those opposed to U.S. Iraq policy throughout Europe in Iraq.
The question now posed for U.S. policy makers: how can they quickly and
convincingly get 100 percent of the facts out (letting the chips fall where
they may) to resolve any questions about this incident?
In fact, there's an inherent problem with checkpoints in Iraq, according
to Annia Ciezadlo of The Christian Science Monitor.
She writes about all uncertainty zones involved in checkpoints in
Iraq...on both sides such as: under Sadaam, idling was risky; American
checkpoints often come one right after another and the driver doesn't
realize this. Checkpoints in Iraq are traumatic for the drivers AND the
soldiers, she writes:
The essential problem with checkpoints is that the Americans don't know if
the Iraqis are "friendlies" or not, and the Iraqis don't know what the
Americans want them to do.
I always wished that the American commanders who set up these checkpoints
could drive through themselves, in a civilian car, so they could see what
the experience was like for civilians. But it wouldn't be the same: They
already know what an American checkpoint is, and how to act at one - which
many Iraqis don't.
Is there a way to do checkpoints right? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it seems
that the checkpoint experience perfectly encapsulates the contradictions
and miseries and misunderstandings of everyone's common experience - both
Iraqis and Americans - in Iraq.
Indeed: contradictions. People with perceptions filtered through a firm
belief that they KNOW what happened. And people who are ready and quick to
use a still cloudy incident to make a long-held political points.
When the incident took place, it was a news item. Now it has moved into
the realm of a political story.
UPDATE: Early this morning a Washington Post-AP report quoted a "U.S.
military source" as saying the "main contributing factor" in the shooting
death was Italy's failure to tell U.S. soldiers that it was bringing a
newly released Italian hostage along the road to the airport:
According to the military source, who said he spoke on condition of
anonymity because the incident is under investigation, U.S. soldiers had
established an impromptu evening checkpoint at the entrance to the road to
the airport about 90 minutes earlier and had stopped other vehicles. They
knew a high-level U.S. Embassy official would be moving to the airport on
that road, and their aim was to support that movement, he said. But no
specific coordination occurred between those involved in Sgrena's rescue
and the military unit responsible for the checkpoint, according to the
source.
The absence of advance communication between the Italians and the U.S.
soldiers at the checkpoint appears to have put the occupants of the car in
grave jeopardy, given what many U.S. officials describe as the military's
standard practice of firing at onrushing cars from their checkpoints in
Iraq.
UPDATE II: Now it turns out that the Italian bigwigs may have not informed
Americans about a huge ransom it was paying to free the journalist - money
that it's clear will help fund the kidnappers' future operations. The
Washington Times reports:
ROME - Italian agents likely withheld information from U.S. counterparts
about a cash-for-freedom deal with gunmen holding an Italian hostage for
fear that Americans might block the trade, Italian news reports said
yesterday.
The decision by operatives of Italy's SISMI military intelligence service
to keep the CIA in the dark about the deal for the release of reporter
Giuliana Sgrena, might have "short-circuited" communications with U.S.
forces controlling the road from Baghdad to the city's airport, the
newspaper La Stampa said.
That would help explain why American troops opened fire on a car whisking
the released hostage to a waiting airplane, wounding Miss Sgrena and
killing the Italian intelligence operative who had just negotiated her
release.
How much was the ransom? Published reports vary, but it was BIG. The
Australian reports:"Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported
yesterday that the Italian Government had paid a ransom of between
E6-8million ($10-13.4million) to buy Sgrena's freedom. It also claimed the
car's injured driver told Italian investigators the Americans "knew
everything about our mission".
So we have contradictions within contradictions...
UPDATE III: CNN's website is running this translation of her March 6,
article. The most notable section is where she confirms that her car was
speeding and out of control:
The car kept on the road, going under an underpass full of puddles and
almost losing control to avoid them. We all incredibly laughed. It was
liberating. Losing control of the car in a street full of water in Baghdad
and maybe wind up in a bad car accident after all I had been through would
really be a tale I would not be able to tell. Nicola Calipari sat next to
me. The driver twice called the embassy and in Italy that we were heading
towards the airport that I knew was heavily patrolled by U.S. troops. They
told me that we were less than a kilometer away...when...I only remember
fire.
ROUNDUP: OTHER VOICES OF VARYING OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE:
--Wizbang's Jay Tea says it sounds as if the military was incompetent,
given all the shots that were reportedly fired:
I have to say I am absolutely disgusted with our military this afternoon
in regards to Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's treatment at the hands
our military....An anti-American "journalist" for a Communist newspaper is
allegedly "captured" by insurgents, then released. On her way out, our
forces shoot 300 to 400 rounds at their car. And the result of all that
firepower? One killed, three injured - none apparently very seriously. Then
they treat them and send them home. Obviously all that money we've spent on
training and equipment has gone to waste if our forces are performing that
poorly.
--Americablog points to the reported ransom:"So Bush's buddy Berlusconi is
paying money to terrorists so they can buy more weapons to kill more US
troops and more Americans on airplanes. Isn't that special. Are we winning
yet?...Yeah, wonder if the MSM is even going to look into her charges."
--Michelle Malkin (as usual) has a ton of great links, succinctly
packaged, and notes the "Easonseque" assertions (that Americans
deliberately try to whack journalists).
--The Mahablog:"I agree with Dr. Atrios that we should not jump to
conclusions about the shooting of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and
the killing of agent Nicola Calipari. War zones by nature are very
dangerous places, which is one of several reasons not to start wars before
all other options are exhausted. Ah-hem."
--Baldilocks:"God rest Mr. Calipari. Too bad he had to give his life to
save such a one as this....(Boy, I'm glad I went to church before I read
that steaming pile.)Don't you love the "logic" and the narcissism? The
soldiers allegedly got the word from on high to kill her all-important self
after the ransom was paid because Washington is opposed to ransom payments.
And killing her would somehow stop Italy and other Coalition Partners from
paying ransom for hostages taken by terrorists."
--Little Green Footballs:"Three hundred to four hundred rounds from an
armored vehicle ... and there were survivors? OK, go ahead, pull my other
leg.Why is anyone taking these obviously false statements seriously?"
--Premptive Karma:"Ultimately I think this newest report underscores my
concern about what kind of long-term problems we are creating by leaving a
swath of collateral damage in our wake. Worst of all, it all traces back to
the profoundly unrealistic expectations that this Administration had of how
we would be received by the Iraqis once Saddam was toppled. How many on all
sides have died or been disfigured as a direct result? We will probably
never know."
--Arthur Chrenkoff:
Now, there are many people from around the world, from Eason Jordan to the
management of Al-Jazeera, who think that the US army is actually targeting
journalists in Iraq. But if you are of an less excitable predisposition,
you have to ask yourself why on earth would the Americans want to kill the
nationals of one of their staunchest allies in Iraq. But never mind why;
I'm sure some nut will be pretty soon come up with an appropriate
conspiracy theory; the real questions is - why that way? The critics think
America Machiavellian enough to want to kill the Italians, and at the same
time stupid enough to do it a way that created one of the more serious
diplomatic incidents since the start of the war. Can't have it both ways,
I'm afraid... Let the proper investigation have a look at the facts,
though, before we start invoking Grassy Knolls.
--Diggers Realm:"This woman is ungrateful and very unintelligent. To think
that US forces would fire on a hostage just released because "Americans do
not like negotiations to free hostages" is so absurdly ignorant that words
cannot describe my disbelief. If they deliberately wanted them killed why
didn't they just walk up to the vehicle and start shooting them rather than
immediately taking Sgrena to medical facilities?"
--Roger Simon attempts to unravel the mystery:
Suppose it was the "insurgents" themselves, through a cut-out obviously,
who alerted the Americans to Sgrena and her protectors, describing their
car as something other than it was - a suicide bomber, perhaps, or some
other possible terrorist-related vehicle. Of course, their motivation would
have been to make the Americans look bad, no matter what resulted. Sgrena
and the others would just have been collateral damage. And that, indeed, is
what has happened. Of course, this is just a plot by a mystery writer. And
not even a particularly good one.
--Cold Fury:"How genuine, indeed, was the "kidnapping"?...Fortunately, as
I say, most of these allegations are easily checked; the only ones for
which there may not be objective evidence are the imposition of some secret
conditions by the terrorists for Sgrena's release, and the degree of
co-operation between the Islamist thugs and Sgrena's handlers. That,
unfortunately, is the difference between Left and Right: the Left invents
unfalsifiable scenarios and ignores facts; we require, both for ourselves
and others, proof of our ideas."
--Crooks And Liars (The Video Blogger) has some more details of what she
told Italian magistrates. C&L writes:"This is a terrible story. I don't
want to judge this tragedy too early.."
--Andrew Olmsted helped train troops. Read his ENTIRE POST but here is
part of it:
Rest assured that no one in Italy is being quoted about how horrible the
terrorists who kidnapped Ms. Sgrena are. The vitriol is all reserved for us
horrible Americans. Talk about a publicity windfall...
I've been Iraq-bound training units on how to run traffic control points
(TCPs) just like the one that fired on Ms. Sgrena's vehicle for most of the
past year. The biggest threat such units face is a vehicle borne improvised
explosive device (i.e. a car bomb) detonating in their midst, so the TCPs
are designed to stop vehicles well away from their center, allowing the
minimum number of soldiers to risk contact with an approaching vehicle.
Vehicles which approach a TCP and fail to stop are dealt with very simply:
they are engaged with rifle and machine gun fire because they may be VBIEDs
which could destroy the entire TCP. Because this threatens to lead to
accidental killings like that involving Ms. Sgrena, we warn units to place
signs well forward of the TCP telling drivers they are approaching a TCP
and need to slow down and stop or they will be fired upon. The TCP is a
delicate balance between protection of the soldiers manning the TCP and
protecting the innocent people who come through the TCP...
Which sounds more likely? A U.S. death squad is able to ambush precisely
the right car, but fails to finish off its target? Or a tragic
misunderstanding possibly predicated by the driver of the Italian vehicle
forgetting that the American soldiers at the TCP weren't privy to the same
knowledge he was about the threat presented by the car?
--The Jawa Report has a ton of stuff on its site in general, even an
apology for one theory it floated out threw out for awhile.
--John Hawkins:"I am sorry that we did fire on one of our allies and it's
tragic that Nicola Calipari, a military intelligence agent, was
killed...and I'm not just saying that. Blue on blue killings are by
definition tragic and this one is no exception. But, losing allies to
friendly fire is also an all too routine event in combat situations. So
coming up with wild conspiracy theories to explain a relatively common
event is rather foolish. Just give it a few days and I suspect we'll have a
fairly good idea of what actually happened..."
--Powerline:"The tone of the article might lead one to believe that she is
a victim of Stockholm syndrome, but her pre-kidnap views appear to have
placed her in the corner of her captors as well....It seems slightly more
inconceivable that anyone in the car would have survived the "avalanche of
gunfire" described by Sgrena than that troops might fire on the car. The
Washington Times article on the shooting rounds up information that belies
Sgrena's bitterest truth in relevant respects: 'Italians kept U.S. forces
in dark.' "
--Cori Dauber:"Presumption is all about what risk you believe is greater.
(In the American criminal justice system, we've decided that the risk of
locking up an innocent man is greater than the risk of freeing a guilty
one, for example.) The military has decided which risk matters more, and
the critics aren't happy with that choice. You can be sure, by the way,
that if the military flipped and put presumption the other way, the press
would be all over them for that choice, too."
--Randall Parker:"Frequent misunderstandings on both sides are getting
lots of innocent civilians killed. Putting lots of soldiers from a
different culture and with a language barrier and insufficient training for
handling an occupation and counterinsurgency into urban areas to fight an
insurgency is a sure fire recipe for getting lots of dead innocent
civilians and for stoking resentments among the occupied population. The
latest incident with the dead Italian government agent is obviously part of
a larger pattern of poor management decisions on roadblocks and methods of
communicating with civilians."
--James Joyner has an excellent piece on the issue of checkpoints. Read it
in its entirety. At one point he notes his own military background:
A quarter century ago, I learned in my military ethics class that soldiers
have a duty to minimize civilian casualties even at the risk of their own
lives. We can't, for example, simply burn down a village with dozens of
civilians in it to avoid the risk of getting soldiers killed taking out a
sniper. In conventional combat, though, we at least have a situation where
identifying the enemy is relatively easy: they wear a different uniform. In
counter-insurgency/counter-terrorism, that's seldom the case. One rather
has to presume that a car coming to a checkpoint that isn't stopping is
hostile.
Later, he adds:"Still, our troops have been manning checkpoints in Iraq
long enough to have smoothed out most of the wrinkles. I'd bet than many of
the "no warning" stories are false. Some, undoubtedly, are true."
--Al Maviva:
First of all, her account that the U.S. fired several hundred shots before
hitting the car, is probably correct, and it is entirely consistent with
the accounts given by the troops. The troops said they flashed lights, made
gestures, and fired many warning shots at the car in an attempt to get it
to slow down.
Trust me, Giuliana dear, if they were trying to off you on purpose, you
wouldn't be around to talk about it. Computer-assisted laser and IR
rangefinding and targeting on U.S. armored vehicles would have assured
that, even if the troops' gunnery skills were not up to snuff.
--Glenn Reynolds:"One suspects that a lot of people are happy to have a
story they can use to take some of the bloom off events in Iraq, regardless
of what liberties have to be taken with the truth."
--Secular Blasphemy:"In this case, it is just too obvious that the
mainstream media's "they said, she said" reporting is utterly useless to
get to the bottom of this incident. Many of the claims could and should
have been verified with military experts, and both the networks and the
print media have ample access to people who can give insights on military
tactics and equipment. One could be tempted to believe that with the
setbacks the anti-Bush media has suffered over the last weeks, the MSM was
just too eager to jump on a negative story and not ruin it by fact-checking
it too much."
--Jeff Goldstein:"Once again, I wasn't there, so I can't know for certain
what happened. But shouldn't we be paying closer attention to the
inconsistencies in Ms Sgrena's rather indulgent tale -- well as to the
potential life-and-death consequences of her captivity and release?"
Be sure to click on and read trackbacks for additional views that may not
be included in the roundup due to time constraints.
Posted on March 7, 2005 | Permalink | 14 Trackbacks
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga <mailto: [EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Internet Bearer Underwriting Corporation <http://www.ibuc.com/>
44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA
"... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity,
[predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to
experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Give underprivileged students the materials they need to learn.
Bring education to life by funding a specific classroom project.
http://us.click.yahoo.com/FHLuJD/_WnJAA/cUmLAA/TySplB/TM
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
--------------------------
Want to discuss this topic? Head on over to our discussion list, [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
--------------------------
Brooks Isoldi, editor
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.intellnet.org
Post message: [email protected]
Subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
*** FAIR USE NOTICE. This message contains copyrighted material whose use has
not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. OSINT, as a part of
The Intelligence Network, is making it available without profit to OSINT
YahooGroups members who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the
included information in their efforts to advance the understanding of
intelligence and law enforcement organizations, their activities, methods,
techniques, human rights, civil liberties, social justice and other
intelligence related issues, for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. We believe that this constitutes a 'fair use' of the copyrighted material
as provided for in section 107 of the U.S. Copyright Law. If you wish to use
this copyrighted material for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use,'
you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/osint/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
