<http://www.uruknet.info/colonna-centrale-pagina.php?p=m10214&size=1&hd=0&l=i>






Why Was Giuliana Targeted -- Or Was She?

Danny Schecter




 March 7, 2005


 BAGHDAD KILLING AFTERMATH
 US DEBATE BEGINS: WAS IT A HOAX?
 PULITZER PRIZE WINNER QUITS NEWSDAY

 No sooner was CNN's Eason Jordan and the issues he raised about the
killing of journalists officially buried by the media than a dramatic new
incident forced the issue back into public awareness. His ghost had risen
even if his voice remains stilled.

 Here we are approaching the second anniversary of the war and Bush was
getting such a nice media bounce in the glow of the election coverage. Just
yesterday, the Iraq parliament announced it will start work March 16 --
Freedom was so "on the march," breathing down the country's privatized
future.....

 And then, day after day, and even this morning, more violence by those
faceless "insurgents" (that our media never tells us much about) claims
more lives. We rarely hear about the daily violence of the occupation in
terms of civilians killed or abuses committed.

 And now this:

 I am sure you have been following it. Journalist Giuliana Srgena, in Iraq
for Italy's il Manifesto newspaper was kidnapped by parties unknown. Her
country is mobilized to demand her release. A top intelligence agent finds
her and reportedly pays off the kidnappers. She is freed and gets within
600 yards of the airport in Baghdad when her car is shot up--300 bullets
according to one account -- by US soldiers. The US offers one version;
Srgena another.

 COVERING IT OR COVERING IT UP?

 On Imus this morning, Tony Aspinall of NBC speculates it was a case of
"mistaken identity," You don't take that road after dark... they were all
on cellphones and didn't see the warning shots " he says, adding that he
expects no investigation. So much for a network probe. The Washington Post
today seems to assume it was a "mistake" but says there have been many such
incidents:

"The deadly shooting of an Italian intelligence officer by U.S. troops at a
checkpoint near Baghdad on Friday was one of many incidents in which
civilians have been killed by mistake at checkpoints in Iraq, including
local police officers, women and children, according to military records,
U.S. officials and human rights groups.

 HOW THE STORY IS BEING PLAYED OVERSEAS

 Frank Meagher pass this news on from Paris: "France F2 news last night,
following a live telephone interview with Giuliana, that US military says
the fatal check point was manned by rookies that had been in country for
only one week." The British press seems focused on the implications for
US-Italy relations:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?st
ory=617569

 The turkishpress.com/ site is reporting:

"... the Italians are not taking the incident lightly. According to a
report posted on the Corriere della Sera site [news item in Italian], the
Italian government is demanding the Department of Justice turn over the
names of the soldiers involved in the attack. "The shooting could rekindle
anti-war sentiment in Italy, where public opinion opposed the U.S.-led
invasion of Iraq," writes Christiano Corvino for SwissInfo. "Italy's
center-left, which hopes to unseat Berlusconi next year in elections and to
weaken his standing at local government polls next month, is campaigning on
a platform of withdrawing." Italian newspapers "warned the government
against a cover-up given Berlusconi's cozy relationship with Washington,"
Media 24 reported yesterday.

 "Predictably, the corporate media in the United States is in the process
of downplaying the fallout from this incident, viewed by many Italians as
an attempt to assassinate Giuliana Sgrena. About 100 demonstrators outside
the U.S. Embassy in Rome blocked traffic and one banner read: ''USA, war
criminals.'" <

 IN MOURNING

 Today, Italy is holding a jammed state funeral for slain intelligence
agent Nicola Calipari, the man Giuliana called her "liberator." Tempers are
frayed. Giuliana is operated on to remove shrapnel. She holds a press
conference to express her belief that the shooting may have been
intentional. Bush phones Berlusconi. The White House dismisses her as a
communist. You can't make this up.

 Check the blog I posted yesterday <
http://www.newsdissector.org/blog/2005/03/05/#march6  > for more details.

 ROME ENRAGED

 Laura Flanders of Air America <
http://www.airamericaradio.com/weblogs/lauraflanders/  >was on the air with
a special correspondent in Rome last night who said Italy is on fire with
concern from moments of silence at football games to thousands flocking
into the street. 10,000 people passed by Rome's Victor Emmanuel monument
yesterday to pay respects to Mr Calipari, whose body lay in state. He says
that the American military version of what happened is being criticized
across the political spectrum.

 Many are saying that there was military antipathy to Giuliana's stories
which reported in the use of napalm and prohibited weapons by US troops in
Fallujah last November. At the time, no US outlets even reported on this.
Last week, Dr ash-Shaykhli of Iraq's Health Ministry confirmed that US
troops used internationally banned weapons including mustard gas, nerve gas
and other burning chemicals. Sounds like the kinds of prohibited weapons
that Saddam was accused of having.

 THE TRASHING OF GIUILANA HAS BEGIN

 In Italy, media outlets of all stripes supported Giuliana. There was
solidarity, a concept few American media types seem to understand. Here in
the Fox and blog-infested waters of the USA, consensus seems impossible and
polarization is the template. In some quarters, torture by Americans is
deemed acceptable and any concerns about the less than stellar job done by
"our troops" is considered heresy, if not treason. Already the victim is
being blamed for the crime. A letter to this blog hints at a plot because
Al Jazeera had a picture of the Italian agent.

 The right-leaning site, Little Green Footballs predictably tries to
discredit Giuliana and anyone who believes her:

"The details of this situation have been described in so many different
ways that it's very difficult to get a clear picture of what happened --
and mainstream media has predictably ignored Sgrena's radical anti-war
background... The inmates of Democratic Underground are beside themselves
with glee, of course, accusing our soldiers of murder with no evidence.
(But don't forget, they support the troops!)"

 < http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=14947_The_Radi
cal_Lefts_Cause_du_Jour&only=yes  >

 Michelle Malkin < http://www.michellemalkin.com/  > takes the side of
"word of US troops than an Italian anti-war journalist".

 Even worse, a web site called My Pet Jawa < http://mypetjawa.mu.nu/  > is,
without evidence, blaming Giuliana for being a terrorist collaborator:
"Suspicion continues to mount (WHERE? DS) that Giuliana Sgrena, the
journalist for the Italian Communist (WRONG) paper Il Manifesto, either
faked her own abduction or became an accomplice after the fact with her
jihadi captors."

 WHAT WOULD JORDAN HAVE SAID?

 The debate is on and according to my sources Eason Jordan will not be part
of it giving accepted a gag rule as part of his buy out. But the blogger
who broke the off the record Chatham House rules at the World Economic
Forum and outed Jordan's comment is back with a comment that includes --
what chutzpah -- wondering what Jordan would have said. Thanks to him, he's
been silenced. Here's Rony Abovitz:

"Liberals will now paint the American troops as bloodthirsty devils, while
harder right Conservatives will say it is all an Italian communist plot and
that the U.S. can never do wrong. I wonder what Eason Jordan would say
about all of this.

 "Here is a thought: take some American kids in their teens and twenties,
and arm them to the teeth. Drop them into a hell where at best their Iraqi
"friends" on the ground likely only hate them and wish them death and a
speedy trip out of their land (bodybag or otherwise). You are vastly
outnumbered, and you have no real idea who is the enemy, because there is
no clear front line - in theory you already "won" the war. You don't
understand the language, the customs, and wish every minute you were back
home. At any moment you can be blown up by a car bomb, suicide bomber, or
be captured and beheaded on a global webcast. You are shot at from all
directions. Your own government has not made it clear when all of this mess
will end, and simply staying alive, keeping your buddies and platoon
brothers alive, matters most. Maybe you believe in the mission, maybe you
don't. You do know that being alive matters, and that getting home, if home
can ever be returned to after being in that hell, is a high priority.

 "Put me in that position and I would open fire on anything that came
within a few hundred yards of me. I would take no risk on my safety, or
that of my friends. Eat lead and die you scumbags would be my motto. Fear
would practically replace any philosophy that drives me now. Raw fear could
make me do almost anything, right or wrong. I never want to take that test.
To have restraint in Iraq is to almost be superhuman, to put one's own life
beneath that of an unknown, unseen enemy. Who among us is that saintly? For
a soldier on the ground I can not believe that it ever really is about
politics -- it is about what is happening at that moment, who is coming at
me now, and what I must do next. There is You, and there is the Other. If
the Other is no Friend, shoot. "

 UNDERSTANDABLE BUT NOT EXCUSABLE

 So that's the 'let us understand and explain the incident away'
rationalization. Any military professional would dismiss it because they
believe in honor, discipline, oversight, and command. If the troops are
acting like cowboys with a license to kill, then that's a war crime, and
inexcusable and yes it is the military that is to blame for not upholding
its own standards and not training these soldiers to uphold the rules of
war. Yes, there are rules of war. So, the "gee they didn't mean it because
you would do the same thing in their situation" excuse is not on.

 We Have Become "The Other," brother.

 JOURNALISTS AT RISK

 Tom Fenton, the retired CBS correspondent now criticizing the networks for
abandoning international news in the book "Bad News," was on CNN yesterday
with Howard Kurtz discussing the media situation in Iraq:

"FENTON: Well, U.S. troops are the ones who have the big guns. Journalists
have always had the risk of being caught in a crossfire. I think there are
a couple of things we can say about this story. Two things -- one, it's
extremely hard to report from Iraq. Most of the reporters, most of the
journalists don't go out of the hotel. It's worth their life. Even going to
a press conference in the green zone is dangerous.

 "Two, there is a back story also to this Italian journalist. It's pretty
widely known that both Italy and France are paying ransoms. That means that
every Italian journalist, every French journalist there is a walking
target. The going price for a Western -- say, for an American journalist,
particularly a TV correspondent, they're big guns, in Iraq is something
like $4 million right now. People get picked up and they get shopped to
somebody else who will pay that kind of money...

 WHAT PRESS FREEDOM GROUPS ARE SAYING

 Tom Regan notes in the Christian Science Monitor:

The Guardian reports that Friday the International Federation of
Journalists accused the US government of hiding behind a "culture of
denial" over the deaths of journalists in Iraq, and said the US had to take
"responsibility for its actions."

 Joel Campagna of the Committee to Protect Journalists writes that while
there is no evidence the US military is targeting journalists, too many
journalists are dying "at the hands of the hands of US soldiers because of
negligence or indifference ... And when journalists are killed, the
military often seems ... unwilling to launch an adequate investigation
 or take steps to mitigate risk."

 Mr. Campagna notes that while insurgent violence is the leading cause of
death for journalists in Iraq (34 out of 54), "US military fire is the
second-leading cause of death. At least nine journalists and two media
support staff have died as a result of US fire in Iraq in the last 23
months."

 < http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com/2005/0218/dailyUpdate
.html  >

 WHAT HAS BEEN HAPPENING?

 Sorry, I have to keep going here because no one in the mainstream seemed
to consider Jordan's points worth of investigation. (And by the way I am
critical of Jordan and CNN for not investigating the killing of journalists
if they knew about them. In that thery were not alone. L JeSurgisLac writes
< http://www.livejournal.com/users/jesurgislac/  >:

"A few people have pointed out (Jeanne at Body and Soul for one) that the
real scandal is that US soldiers have been killing journalists in Iraq -
and no one in the American MSM seems to care very much. I found an In
Memoriam page that lists 24 journalists, translators, and cameramen who
have died in Iraq:

 "To all war correspondents out there, to all those who cover the horror of
mankinds cruelty to mankind, maybe one day the horror which you captured
may persuade us that war is a barbaric way to solve our differences. An
independent journalist who covers war is a peacemaker. The pursuit of truth
can bring grim consequences to those who pursue it. Thanks to those who
have been killed in their duty of reporting on the truth and to those
imprisoned and tortured.

 "The 24 names are: Terry Lloyd, Paul Moran, Gaby Rado, Kaveh Golestan,
Michael Kelly, Kamaran Abd al-Razaq Muhammad, David Bloom, Julio Anguita
Parrado, Christian Liebig, Tariq Ayoub, Taras Protsyuk, Jose Couso, Mario
Podesta, Veronica Cabrera, Elizabeth Neuffer, Walid Khalifa Hassan
Al-Dulami, Richard Wild, Jeremy Little, Mazin Dana, Mark Fineman, Ahmad
Shawkat, Duraid Isa Muhammad, and Ali Abdul Aziz."

 SOLDIER SPEAKS

 Someone named pecunium then writes: "I am going on inside knowledge, I was
an NCO in the human intelligence company of V Corps during the war. As such
I was privy to information which was not public, and is not readily
available to people now.

 "I do my best to keep my comments to public sources, but can't always keep
my secondary opinions from being colored enough by what I know to come to
my conclusions without information most people can't get."

>From the CFLCC ROE (RULES OF ENGANGEMENT)
 1c. Do not target or strike any of the following except in self-defense to
protect yourself, your unit, friendly forces and designated persons or
property under your control:
 Civilians
 d. Do not fire into civilian populated areas or buildings unless the enemy
is using them for military purposes or if neccesary for your self-defense.
Minimize collateral damage.
 2. The use of force, including deadly force, is authorized to protect the
following:
 Yourself, your unit and friendly forces
 Enemy Prisoners of War
 Civilians from crimes that are likely to cause death or serious bodily
harm, such as murder or rape
 Designated civilians and/or property, such as personnel of the Red
Cross/Crescent, UN and US/UN supported organizations.
 Remember
 Attack enemy forces and military targets.
 Spare civilians and civilian property, if possible.
 Conduct yourself with dignity and honor.
 Comply with the Law of War. If you see a violation, report it.

 "That's extracted from the ROE Card, handed to everyone who was in
theater. It has a lot of wiggle room, and that wiggle room is why what was,
in effect a bush shot, was deemed legit"

 AN ANTI-REPORTER MENTALITY

 And what did this mean for that shell that hit the Palestine Hotel?"

 This soldier writes: "Someone told them the hotel was being used to spot,
and they shot it. A tad heavy handed, (and not really useful, without some
real intel, there are a number of high points which could have been used to
spot for arty, this was no Monte Cassino), but not outside the rules.

 "But it does break some of the spirit of the rules, and given the nature
of the ROE, and what CentCom, CFLCC and V Corps knew about the hotel, it
should have been off limits, without approval from at least brigade, and
probably Division...."

 "There is a decided opinion, among both the rank and file, and the command
structure, that reporters are out to get troops.

 "Look at the reactions to reportage of war crimes... the reporters are
lambasted, the troops are said to have been reacting to circumstance."

 (It should be noted that a number of Giuliana's reports deal with war
crimes like reported uses of napalm in Fallujah.)






:: Article nr. 10214 sent on 08-mar-2005 02:46 ECT


-- 
-----------------
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 --------------------~--> 
DonorsChoose. A simple way to provide underprivileged children resources 
often lacking in public schools. Fund a student project in NYC/NC today!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EHLuJD/.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/
 



Reply via email to