The media monitoring website Medialens (www.medialens.org) has published some extraordinary correspondence between itself and the BBC regarding allegations of war crimes committed by US troops in their recent assault on the Iraqi city of Fallujah.
I’m going to quote at some length but the article’s worth reading in full. Medialens does not assert that the allegations are beyond doubt (and nor do I), but it does say that they are substantial, extremely serious and should certainly be discussed. At least as far as a discussion is concerned, the BBC does not appear to be in complete agreement.
Let’s look at what’s alleged to have taken place.
“the journalist Dahr Jamail recently interviewed an Iraqi doctor from Fallujah who describes atrocities committed by US forces during their assault on that city last November. The doctor, now a refugee in Jordan and speaking on condition of anonymity, insists his testimony is backed up by video and photographic evidence.
According to the doctor, during the second week of their attack US forces "announced that all the families [had] to leave their homes and meet at an intersection in the street while carrying a white flag. They gave them 72 hours to leave and after that they would be considered an enemy. We documented this story with video - a family of 12, including a relative and his oldest child who was 7 years old. They heard this instruction, so they left with all their food and money they could carry, and white flags. When they reached the intersection where the families were accumulating, they heard someone shouting 'Now!' in English, and shooting started everywhere."
A surviving eyewitness told the doctor everyone in the family was carrying white flags, as instructed. Nevertheless, the witness watched as his mother was shot in the head and his father was shot through the heart by snipers. His two aunts were also shot, and his brother was shot in the neck. The survivor stated that when he raised himself from the ground to shout for help, he too was shot in the side. The doctor continued: "After some hours he raised his arm for help and they shot his arm. So after a while he raised his hand and they shot his hand."
A six year-old boy was standing over the bodies of his parents, crying, and he too was shot.
"Anyone who raised up was shot," the doctor said, adding that he had photographs of the dead and also of survivors' gunshot wounds.”
Elsewhere al-Jazeera reported that:
"Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah."
The official reported evidence that US forces had "used... substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city."
Fallujah residents described how they had seen "melted" bodies in the city, indicative of usage of napalm, a lethal cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that incinerates the human body."
Medialens also cited testimony gathered by documentary film-maker Mark Manning.
“Manning was able to secretly conduct 25 hours of videotaped interviews with dozens of Iraqi eyewitnesses - men, women and children who had experienced the assault on Fallujah first-hand. In an interview with a local newspaper in the United States, Manning recounted how he:
"... was told grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American soldiers. He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by both American and Iraqi troops. Manning said he heard numerous reports of the second siege of Falluja that described American forces deploying - in violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted uranium. Use of any of these against civilians is a violation of international law."”
Given the seriousness of the allegations being made against Britain’s closest ally from a variety of independent sources one would presume that reporting the accusations would fall within the BBC’s public service remit. Media Lens contacted the BBC and asked whether these specific allegations of US atrocities were being investigated. The corporation’s response was that "The conduct of coalition forces has been examined at length by BBC programmes, and if justified, that will continue to be the case." But when asked precisely which BBC programmes had addressed the conduct of "coalition" forces in Fallujah, including the above evidence of war crimes, Medialens was ignored.
Meidalens pressed the BBC news to explain why it had paid little attention to the repeated allegations of atrocities, or to the evidence of the use of banned weapons in Fallujah. This time the BBC responded at length, saying that it was aware of the claims and was continually investigating the events in Fallujah, hampered though it was by its movements being restricted for security reasons, and also mentioning a lack of independent verification. In addition, it said that a BBC correspondent had been embedded with the US Marines and “over many weeks of total access to the military operation, at all levels, we did not see banned weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed. We cannot therefore report their use.”
Medialens asked the BBC to justify the claim that it had "total access to the military operation, at all levels". The response was that “total access meant that [the correspondent] was never stopped from going into any meeting he asked to go into. He was embedded at battalion level but, for instance, he did show up several times (and film) at the colonel's morning meeting with senior staff, where orders were given out. Most importantly, [the correspondent] also attended the eve of battle briefing for the battalion, at which there were slides and folders with "Top Secret" stamped all over them. [The BBC also] had meetings with the relevant specialists at Human Rights Watch, who have been very tough on the US military as regards abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul asked them specifically about banned weapons in Fallujah. They said they had heard the claims, had made some investigations, and had found no evidence that such weapons had been used.”
Medialens responded by pointing out that the BBC “never being stopped” from going into any meeting it asked to go into is not quite the same thing as having “total access to the military operation, at all levels". It asked for evidence to support the assertion that the BBC had attended the only eve of battle briefing for the battalion.
Medialens also asked how comprehensive Human Rights Watch’s investigations into the alleged use of banned weapons had been. After all “US marines have, in fact, already admitted that they have used an upgraded version of napalm. (Andrew Buncombe, 'US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq', The Independent on Sunday, 10 August, 2003). The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was deployed when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad. As Andrew Buncombe reported in the Independent on Sunday:
"We napalmed both those bridge approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."”
The BBC’s response was brief. “Thank you for your further email. However, I do not believe that further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful purpose.”
And no matter how many double-takes you do, the words stay the same. “I do not believe that further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful purpose.”
Just to clear up any lingering confusion, the “useful purpose” that further dialogue on this matter would serve - the “useful purpose” that apparently eludes the BBC, is this:
There are substantive reports now emerging from a variety of independent sources that Britain’s closest ally is committing horrifically brutal war crimes against civilians in Iraq. If the allegations are true, these crimes are being committed with decisive military and diplomatic support from our government. Britain is a relatively free and democratic country, which means that all of its citizens share some responsibility for what its government does. The only way we can exercise effective democratic control over our government is if we have all the relevant information at our disposal. The job of BBC News, as a publicly funded, public-interest broadcaster, is to ensure that we have that information in front of us. It is therefore vital that both BBC executives and those of us who rely on them satisfy ourselves that this most valuable of institutions is, in this most serious of cases, doing its job properly.
As an aside, it’s also worth mentioning the problems posed to major print and broadcast media by the internet; problems which are well documented. Information is now more freely and widely available than ever before. Any failure by the traditional media to report all the relevant information on matters of importance is therefore far less likely to go unnoticed. And when those failures are noticed appropriate conclusions will be drawn and credibility is bound to suffer as a result. For those reasons it is also important from the BBC’s own point of view that it concludes its correspondence with Medialens on these specific allegations in a satisfactory matter.
Let’s look at what’s alleged to have taken place.
“the journalist Dahr Jamail recently interviewed an Iraqi doctor from Fallujah who describes atrocities committed by US forces during their assault on that city last November. The doctor, now a refugee in Jordan and speaking on condition of anonymity, insists his testimony is backed up by video and photographic evidence.
According to the doctor, during the second week of their attack US forces "announced that all the families [had] to leave their homes and meet at an intersection in the street while carrying a white flag. They gave them 72 hours to leave and after that they would be considered an enemy. We documented this story with video - a family of 12, including a relative and his oldest child who was 7 years old. They heard this instruction, so they left with all their food and money they could carry, and white flags. When they reached the intersection where the families were accumulating, they heard someone shouting 'Now!' in English, and shooting started everywhere."
A surviving eyewitness told the doctor everyone in the family was carrying white flags, as instructed. Nevertheless, the witness watched as his mother was shot in the head and his father was shot through the heart by snipers. His two aunts were also shot, and his brother was shot in the neck. The survivor stated that when he raised himself from the ground to shout for help, he too was shot in the side. The doctor continued: "After some hours he raised his arm for help and they shot his arm. So after a while he raised his hand and they shot his hand."
A six year-old boy was standing over the bodies of his parents, crying, and he too was shot.
"Anyone who raised up was shot," the doctor said, adding that he had photographs of the dead and also of survivors' gunshot wounds.”
Elsewhere al-Jazeera reported that:
"Dr. Khalid ash-Shaykhli, an official at Iraq's health ministry, said that the U.S. military used internationally banned weapons during its deadly offensive in the city of Fallujah."
The official reported evidence that US forces had "used... substances, including mustard gas, nerve gas, and other burning chemicals in their attacks in the war-torn city."
Fallujah residents described how they had seen "melted" bodies in the city, indicative of usage of napalm, a lethal cocktail of polystyrene and jet fuel that incinerates the human body."
Medialens also cited testimony gathered by documentary film-maker Mark Manning.
“Manning was able to secretly conduct 25 hours of videotaped interviews with dozens of Iraqi eyewitnesses - men, women and children who had experienced the assault on Fallujah first-hand. In an interview with a local newspaper in the United States, Manning recounted how he:
"... was told grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American soldiers. He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by both American and Iraqi troops. Manning said he heard numerous reports of the second siege of Falluja that described American forces deploying - in violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted uranium. Use of any of these against civilians is a violation of international law."”
Given the seriousness of the allegations being made against Britain’s closest ally from a variety of independent sources one would presume that reporting the accusations would fall within the BBC’s public service remit. Media Lens contacted the BBC and asked whether these specific allegations of US atrocities were being investigated. The corporation’s response was that "The conduct of coalition forces has been examined at length by BBC programmes, and if justified, that will continue to be the case." But when asked precisely which BBC programmes had addressed the conduct of "coalition" forces in Fallujah, including the above evidence of war crimes, Medialens was ignored.
Meidalens pressed the BBC news to explain why it had paid little attention to the repeated allegations of atrocities, or to the evidence of the use of banned weapons in Fallujah. This time the BBC responded at length, saying that it was aware of the claims and was continually investigating the events in Fallujah, hampered though it was by its movements being restricted for security reasons, and also mentioning a lack of independent verification. In addition, it said that a BBC correspondent had been embedded with the US Marines and “over many weeks of total access to the military operation, at all levels, we did not see banned weapons being used, deployed, or even discussed. We cannot therefore report their use.”
Medialens asked the BBC to justify the claim that it had "total access to the military operation, at all levels". The response was that “total access meant that [the correspondent] was never stopped from going into any meeting he asked to go into. He was embedded at battalion level but, for instance, he did show up several times (and film) at the colonel's morning meeting with senior staff, where orders were given out. Most importantly, [the correspondent] also attended the eve of battle briefing for the battalion, at which there were slides and folders with "Top Secret" stamped all over them. [The BBC also] had meetings with the relevant specialists at Human Rights Watch, who have been very tough on the US military as regards abuses in Iraq and Afghanistan. Paul asked them specifically about banned weapons in Fallujah. They said they had heard the claims, had made some investigations, and had found no evidence that such weapons had been used.”
Medialens responded by pointing out that the BBC “never being stopped” from going into any meeting it asked to go into is not quite the same thing as having “total access to the military operation, at all levels". It asked for evidence to support the assertion that the BBC had attended the only eve of battle briefing for the battalion.
Medialens also asked how comprehensive Human Rights Watch’s investigations into the alleged use of banned weapons had been. After all “US marines have, in fact, already admitted that they have used an upgraded version of napalm. (Andrew Buncombe, 'US admits it used napalm bombs in Iraq', The Independent on Sunday, 10 August, 2003). The upgraded weapon, which uses kerosene rather than petrol, was deployed when dozens of napalm bombs were dropped near bridges over the Saddam Canal and the Tigris river, south of Baghdad. As Andrew Buncombe reported in the Independent on Sunday:
"We napalmed both those bridge approaches," said Colonel James Alles, commander of Marine Air Group 11. "Unfortunately there were people there... you could see them in the cockpit video. They were Iraqi soldiers. It's no great way to die. The generals love napalm. It has a big psychological effect."”
The BBC’s response was brief. “Thank you for your further email. However, I do not believe that further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful purpose.”
And no matter how many double-takes you do, the words stay the same. “I do not believe that further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful purpose.”
Just to clear up any lingering confusion, the “useful purpose” that further dialogue on this matter would serve - the “useful purpose” that apparently eludes the BBC, is this:
There are substantive reports now emerging from a variety of independent sources that Britain’s closest ally is committing horrifically brutal war crimes against civilians in Iraq. If the allegations are true, these crimes are being committed with decisive military and diplomatic support from our government. Britain is a relatively free and democratic country, which means that all of its citizens share some responsibility for what its government does. The only way we can exercise effective democratic control over our government is if we have all the relevant information at our disposal. The job of BBC News, as a publicly funded, public-interest broadcaster, is to ensure that we have that information in front of us. It is therefore vital that both BBC executives and those of us who rely on them satisfy ourselves that this most valuable of institutions is, in this most serious of cases, doing its job properly.
As an aside, it’s also worth mentioning the problems posed to major print and broadcast media by the internet; problems which are well documented. Information is now more freely and widely available than ever before. Any failure by the traditional media to report all the relevant information on matters of importance is therefore far less likely to go unnoticed. And when those failures are noticed appropriate conclusions will be drawn and credibility is bound to suffer as a result. For those reasons it is also important from the BBC’s own point of view that it concludes its correspondence with Medialens on these specific allegations in a satisfactory matter.
e-mail:
Homepage:
