|
The War Profiteers - War Crimes,
Kidnappings, Torture and Big Money |
|
June 24th,
2007 - A Marine Tutorial on Media ‘Spin’ News article by New York Times |
|
A Marine Tutorial on Media
‘Spin’ By Paul von Zielbauer New York Times June 24, 2007 In November 2005, a group of
marines killed 24 Iraqi men, women and children after Sunni Arab insurgents
detonated a roadside bomb in Haditha that killed one infantryman and wounded
two others. Marine officers assumed the Iraqi deaths occurred during combat
and were justified, if regrettable. Skip to next paragraph More than a year later, in
December 2006, the Marine Corps charged three enlisted men with murder in
those deaths, as well as four officers with dereliction of duty in failing to
determine exactly how and why the Iraqis were killed. All have said they did
nothing wrong. Military hearings began last
month. But the episode might have gone unexamined if not for Tim McGirk, a
reporter for Time magazine. In January 2006, he sent an e-mail message to the
Second Marine Division in Haditha, asking questions that clearly conveyed his
suspicion that an atrocity had been committed. The Second Division wanted a
response to each question from its Third Battalion, which was responsible for
fighting insurgents in Haditha. So on Jan. 29, 2006, the battalion commander,
Lt. Col. Jeffrey R. Chessani, gathered his executive officer, Maj. Kevin M.
Gonzalez, Capt. Lucas M. McConnell, the commander of the company involved in
the shootings, and First Lt. Adam P. Mathes, to hash out answers. The four officers produced a
five-page memo of “talking points” and answers that displayed a searing view
of American journalists conspiring to undermine the war effort. The memo, excerpted below
with a few typos, came to light in a military hearing earlier this month for
one of the accused officers. ------------------- McGirk: How many marines
were killed and wounded in the I.E.D. attack that morning? Memo: If it bleeds, it
leads. This question is McGirk’s attempt to get good bloody gouge on the
situation. He will most likely use the information he gains from this answer
as an attention gainer. McGirk: Were there any
officers? Memo: By asking if there was
an officer on scene the reporter may be trying to identify a point of blame
for lack of judgment. If there was an officer involved, then he may be able
to have his My Lai massacre pinned on that officer’s shoulders. ... In the reporter’s eyes,
military officers may represent the U.S. government and enlisted marines may
represent the American People. Given the current political climate in the
U.S. at this time concerning the Iraq war and the current administration’s
conduct of the war, the reporter would most likely seek to discredit the U.S.
government (one of our officers) and expose victimization of the American
people by the hand of the government (the enlisted marines under the
haphazard command of our “rogue officer.”) Unfortunately for McGirk, this is
not the case. One common tactic used by
reporters is to spin a story in such a way that it is easily recognized and
remembered by the general population through its association with an event
that the general population is familiar with or can relate to. For example,
McGirk’s story will sell if it can be spun as “Iraq’s My Lai massacre.” Since
there was not an officer involved, this attempt will not go very far. We must be on guard, though,
of the reporter’s attempt to spin the story to sound like incidents from
well-known war movies, like “Platoon.” In “Platoon,” Sergeant
Barnes, the movie’s antihero, is depicted as a no-nonsense, war-haggard
platoon sergeant who knows how to get things done in the bloody jungles of
Vietnam - and it ain’t always pretty. During one scene, Sergeant Barnes is
shown on the verge of committing war crimes in front of his platoon by
threatening to kill women and children as a means of interrogation. This is a
classic “runaway sergeant” storyline wherein the audience is supposed to be
sickened by the sergeant’s brutality and equally sickened by the traumatic
effects war has on soldiers. This schema is especially fruitful for Mr.
McGirk because if he tries to adapt our situation to this model it
simultaneously exposes a “war crime cover-up” and shows the deteriorative
(albeit exaggerated) effects of war on U.S. marines (the best of the best),
which could be expanded by the general press as a testament for why the U.S.
should pull out of Iraq. [Colonel Chessani later
shortened this answer to “No.”] McGirk: How many marines
were involved in the killings? Memo: First off, we don’t
know what you’re talking about when you say “killings.” One of our squads
reinforced by a squad of Iraqi Army soldiers were engaged by an enemy
initiated ambush on the 19th that killed one American marine and seriously
injured two others. We will not justify that question with a response. Theme:
Legitimate engagement: we will not acknowledge this reporter’s attempt to
stain the engagement with the misnomer “killings.” McGirk: Were there any
weapons found during these house raids - or terrorists - where the killings
occurred? Memo: Again, you are showing
yourself to be uneducated in the world of contemporary insurgent combat. The
subject about which we are speaking was a legitimate engagement initiated by
the enemy. ... McGirk: Is there any
investigation ongoing into these civilian deaths, and if so have any marines
been formally charged? Memo: No, the engagement was
bona fide combat action. ... By asking this question, McGirk is assuming the
engagement was a LOAC [Law of Armed Conflict] violation and that by asking
about investigations, he may spurn a reaction from the command that will
initiate an investigation. McGirk: Are the marines in
this unit still serving in Haditha? Memo: Yes, we are still
fighting terrorists of Al Qaida in Iraq in Haditha. (“Fighting terrorists
associated with Al Qaida” is stronger language than “serving.” The American
people will side more with someone actively fighting a terrorist organization
that is tied to 9/11 than with someone who is idly “serving,” like in a way
one “serves” a casserole. It’s semantics, but in reporting and journalism,
words spin the story.) External link: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/24/weekinreview/24word.html Iraq cases struggle to
obtain testimony Witnesses are often unwilling or unable By Alex Roth San Diego Union-Tribune June 24, 2007 During a recent hearing at
Camp Pendleton, a military prosecutor made a frank admission: He had no idea
whether several Iraqi witnesses would come to the United States to testify
against a Marine accused of executing three Iraqi civilians. Those witnesses are a
significant part of the prosecution's case against Lance Cpl. Justin
Sharratt. He is one of several Marines accused of embarking on a killing
spree in the city of Haditha after a fellow Marine was killed in a roadside
bomb blast. Two dozen Iraqis died during
the Nov. 19, 2005, incident. The prosecutor's
acknowledgment underscores one of the biggest hurdles in handling any
war-crimes case stemming from the Iraq conflict: Crucial Iraqi witnesses –
sometimes the alleged victims – are often unable, unwilling or otherwise
unavailable to testify. Since the war began in 2003,
it has been rare, if not unprecedented, for the military to bring Iraqi
witnesses to the United States. In war-crimes cases tried at
Camp Pendleton and other bases around the nation, military prosecutors are
confronting the same difficulties that civilian prosecutors face in gang-and
mob-related trials: Witnesses who won't cooperate, suddenly disappear or end
up dead. Amid the violence in their
homeland, some Iraqis fear retribution from fellow countrymen if they are
seen cooperating with the United States. Consider the recent case of
a Camp Pendleton Marine accused of beating and severely injuring three
Iraqis. One of the Iraqis who cooperated with military investigators was
later murdered, said David Sheldon, an attorney for the Marine, 2nd Lt.
Nathan Phan. Another Iraqi witness in the
case simply vanished, Sheldon said. “He slipped under the
radar,” said Sheldon, who is based in Washington, D.C. Even when Iraqis do
cooperate, there are language barriers and other cultural issues. During a court proceeding in
the case of William Hunsaker, an Army specialist accused of unlawfully
killing three Iraqis last year, one Iraqi witness seemed genuinely confused
about the concept of testifying truthfully, said Hunsaker's attorney, Michael
Waddington. The witness eventually
agreed to tell the truth, but only if he was given a copy of the Koran first,
Waddington said. Then the man refused to touch the Koran until he was
properly cleansed. “They took him to a trailer
and gave him a bath,” Waddington said. Sometimes military
prosecutors don't have to worry about Iraqi witnesses because they can prove
their cases through other evidence. They have won convictions by using
forensic evidence, photographs and testimony from service members who were given
immunity. Those cases include two
courts-martial in 2005 at Camp Pendleton for Marines charged in an Iraqi
prisoner's death. It's unclear whether
prosecutors have a wide and strong range of evidence against Sharratt and two
other enlisted Marines charged with murdering the Haditha civilians. Testimony from Iraqi
witnesses appears particularly important to the Sharratt prosecution. These
Iraqis have told investigators that they saw Sharratt help lead four men into
a house and then kill them. According to the military's
investigations, Iraqi witnesses also could be pivotal in the case against
Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, who faces 13 counts of murder in connection with
the Haditha deaths. In January, the Washington
Post reported that the evidence against Wuterich includes statements given by
a 13-year-old girl whose mother, 3-year-old sister, 5-year-old brother and
four other relatives were killed by Wuterich and other members of Kilo
Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment. The girl said she survived
by playing dead. She told investigators, “(Wuterich) fired and killed
everybody. The American fired and killed everybody,” the Post reported. A Camp Pendleton-based
military prosecutor was unavailable for comment on whether the girl or other
Iraqis would be available to testify against Wuterich, who is scheduled for a
preliminary hearing at Camp Pendleton in August. In some cases where
testimony from Iraqis was vital to the prosecution, judges have held hearings
in Iraq so those witnesses would be more inclined to take the stand. In other cases, including
one of the Abu Ghraib prison abuse trials, prosecutors and defense lawyers
were allowed to videotape the prisoners' testimony and use that footage
during trial. But several defense lawyers
in the Haditha case expressed reservations about holding a court-martial in
Iraq or being required to travel to Haditha to videotape the witnesses'
testimony. “If that ever took place,
they'd be putting into jeopardy the lives of innocent civilians like me,”
said Mark Zaid, one of Wuterich's attorneys. “I'm not going to Iraq.” External link: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/military/20070624-9999-1m24haditha.html |