The main relevance of this, for UK Indymedia, is the Indymedia policy. Should Indymedia work with the authorities, to protect the identity of army recruiters?

The background is a project to force young unemployed in Amsterdam, with Turkish parents, into the Dutch and Turkish armies. Since conscription was abolished in the Netherlands, the army is permanently under strength.

The project is run by an Amsterdam workfare agency, NV Werk. This agency is nominally privatised, but still 100% owned by the city council. Its task is essentially to bully the unemployed into accepting the jobs no-one wants, like in slaughterhouses. The army project is specifically targeted at the Turkish minority, with Turkish-language folders. The soldiers sign up for service in the Dutch army, but most also serve in the Turkish Army, for at least a month. All male children of Turkish parents are liable to Turkish military service, no matter where they are born and live.

Some of the recruiting is done informally, in Turkish clubs and coffeehouses, but some is forced recruitment of claimants. The recruiter at NV Werk, Dino Sinanovic, is given the Social Security files of Turkish claimants. He is empowered to call them in for an interview, send them to the army for assessment, or offer them military service directly. Refusal means loss of benefit. Sinanovic works under contract for Colonel Schallenberg, the chief recruiter for the Dutch army.

The double military service arrangement existed already, but the recruitment project was set up in the run-up to the Iraq war. Perhaps the aim was to set up a unit of Dutch-trained soldiers, to fight in Turkish uniform in northern Iraq. That way, the Dutch government could satisfy the US demands for troops, while avoiding direct participation in the war. As it turned out, the war in Iraq was short, and the expected Turkish invasion of northern Iraq did not materialise. Now Dutch troops will be probably go to southern Iraq under their own flag, as part of the occupation force.

Before the war started, I posted the story about Sinanovic on Indymedia Netherlands. Some time later, a lawyer for NV Werk, Arendse, contacted Indymedia. She asked them to remove the name of Dino Sinanovic, because his personal safety was threatened. Indymedia complied with the request, without explaining why, without saying it was a request from the authorities.

I later found out why Indymedia NL had deleted the name, and posted a short message about Arendse's request. At first the Indymedia editors claimed that they had acted entirely on their own initiative. Later they simply deleted the whole post. So did Indymedia Belgium. However, a journalist writing on Indymedia policy later contacted Arendse, and she confirmed that she had asked for the deletion.

Now, there is no doubt that Sinanovic is in danger of being shot. That's not because of my Indymedia post, but because he is recruiting soldiers to kill and torture Kurds. And unlike Col. Schallenberg, he is doing that from an unprotected office, in the middle of an area with many Turkish and Kurdish immigrants, and he is doing it publicly and openly. The names of Sinanovic and his assistant Yakup Karahan are printed in the information folders, with office address, e-mail, and telephone numbers. So there is no question of "disclosing" his name via Indymedia, his name is already publicly available.

The issue for all Indymedia sites is this: how many more deals are done with lawyers, behind the scenes, to delete material? How often do authorities contact Indymedia editors with this kind of request? Why don't Indymedia editors disclose such contacts?

And the ethical issue in this case is: why protect someone like Dino Sinanovic? Someone who coerces the unemployed, into military service in the Turkish army.... His motives might be political, he comes from ex-Yugoslavia, Sinanovic is a Bosnian name, and perhaps he is fanatically grateful for the western intervention there. But if true, that is no excuse for what he is doing. He deserves criticism, and Indymedia should not obstruct that criticism.