Media under attack in Iraq

[nicky g]

As in Afghanistan, the offices of al-Jazeera have again been blown up following criticism of their coverage, thisis time killing one of their correspondents. I find it hard to believe this is a coincidence. Many people here loathe al-Jazeera, but never the less isn't this a clear war crime? Thefeeble excuse that Iraqi (and previously Serb) TV is part of the regime's "command-and-control" network can hardly apply to a Qatari satellite network.

http://www.indexonline.org/news/20030408_iraq.shtml

Iraq: Media under attack

US-British forces turning
journalists into targets


The cavalier attitude of the US and Britain to the media's rights in time of war, especially where the media presents a contrary view to their own, has led once again to attacks on civilians, tragic loss of life, and has dramatically increased the risk to all journalists - now and in the future.
On the night of 7-8 April the media became targets of the US-British forces in Iraq. A week after the Iraqi authorities tried to stop him from broadcasting, the US effectively shut al-Jazeera Baghdad correspondent Tariq Ayub down for good, killing him in a missile strike on the station's studio in the city.

A US military spokeswoman has denied that al-Jazeera's TV studio in Baghdad was deliberately targeted. "We did not target al-Jazeera," Major Rumi Nielson-Green told journalists in Qatar. "We only target legitimate military targets."

The station didn't believe her. "I will not be objective about this because we have been dragged into this conflict," al-Jazeera's visibly upset Baghdad correspondent Majed Abdel Hadi told viewers, as monitored by Reuters. "We were targeted because the Americans don't want the world to see the crimes they are committing against the Iraqi people."

The Pentagon has a record here. Hours before the US-backed Afghan Northern Alliance marched into Kabul on 12 November 2001, the US dropped a 500-pound bomb on al-Jazeera's studios in the city. Then as now al-Jazeera said the attack was deliberate; then as now the US denied intentionally targeting it.

Also, then as now, the US preceded its attack with criticism of its coverage. In October 2001, US Secretary of State Colin Powell asked the Emir of Qatar, who partly finances the station, to rein in the station's editorial line and cease its broadcasts of videos of Osama Bin Laden's speeches.

In March 2003, British and US officials criticised the station for broadcasting footage of captured US prisoners of war. US officials say the network is biased toward Iraq and allege that the station airs Iraqi propaganda to gain profitable exclusive footage - a charge the network denies.

In an effort to prevent US attacks al-Jazeera had provided the US forces with the coordinates of its Kabul office and did the same in Baghdad, plus the code of its signal to the satellite transponder - also without effect.

The missile shattered the building in the early hours of the morning. Abu Dhabi TV showed footage of a huge fire blazing from the Jazeera office. Jazeera correspondent Tayseer Alouni, known across the Arab world for his reports from the war in Afghanistan, was seen carrying the wounded Ayub into a car. A cameraman, Zuheir al-Iraqi, was hit in the neck by shrapnel in the blast.

The attacks on Iraqi TV the same night saw its transmitters in the Iraqi capital destroyed in an effort to further demoralise Saddam Hussein's remaining forces. Iraqi television and radio had up to that point continued to broadcast a steady stream of propaganda messages. After the attack it showed only old footage of crowds cheering Saddam and played patriotic music.

In fact it was a bad night for all the media. The Hotel Palestine, home to the international press corps, was accidentally hit by US fire. Reuter cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, later died of his wounds. Three other Reuter staff and a Spanish cameraman were also wounded.

The night of violence marked the culmination of weeks of US and British public criticism of al-Jazeera in general and Iraqi TV in particular. Despite the very clear opinion of international legal experts that the stations were protected civilian facilities and could not be legitimately targeted, attacks on both were seen as almost inevitable.

When Iraqi TV in Baghdad was hit by a US missile strike on 25 March, the attack was strongly criticised by press and human rights groups. Amnesty International warned the next day that the attack may have been a "war crime". Bombing a television station "simply because it is being used for the purposes of propaganda" is illegal under international humanitarian law. "The onus," said Amnesty, is on "coalition forces" to prove "the military use of the TV station and, if that is indeed the case, to show that the attack took into account the risk to civilian lives."

In reply British defence secretary Geoff Hoon said that Iraqi state television was part of Saddam Hussein's control, command and communications network.

Human Rights Watch argued that even if that were true, "the principle of proportionality in attack must be scrupulously respected. "This means that planners and military commanders should verify at all times that the risks involved to the civilian population in undertaking such attacks do not outweigh the perceived military benefit.

"Special precautions should be taken in relation to buildings located in urban areas. Advance warning of an attack must be given whenever possible."

"Television stations are not directly targeted in that sense," Hoon told the BBC, (but) "they are part of the military command and control structures and certainly they are dealt with as other parts of the communications system that allows the military to operate in and around Baghdad are similarly dealt with."

During the bombing of Kosovo in 1999, NATO destroyed the headquarters of Serbian TV in Belgrade (RTS), citing the same defence. That attack, along with the bombing of the Taleban-run Afghan radio at the outset of the war in Afghanistan, drew similar charges that such attacks were war crimes.

The IFJ and Reporters Sans Frontiers warned at the time that the RTS attack would set a dangerous precedent for assaults on press freedom, notes Matt Robinson in an article for EPN, citing Israeli attacks on Palestinian media since then and the Indo-Pakistan conflict where media installations on both sides were hit.

Since Kosovo, the US and British military have consistently pushed at the limits of international law by lethally striking at civilian media that they allege y has a dual military role - but which also transmits a message that counters the US-British official line.

When their permanent censorship by cruise missile is preceded by loud objections to their output, it's small wonder that the denials of the military and the diplomats are being disbelieved.

Commenting on the 25 March attack on Iraqi TV International Federation of Journalists general secretary Aidan White told Reuters that "once again, we see military and political commanders from the democratic world targeting a television network simply because they don't like the message it gives out."

And as the US media monitoring groups Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) point out, much of the US media has shown scant concern for the rights of their opposition numbers. It noted that some US reporters "expressed satisfaction" after the 25 March attack.

It cites, among several, New York Times reporter Michael Gordon's appearance on CNN to endorse the attack: "I think the television, based on what I've seen of Iraqi television, with Saddam Hussein presenting propaganda to his people and showing off the Apache helicopter and claiming a farmer shot it down and trying to persuade his own public that he was really in charge, when we're trying to send the exact opposite message, I think, was an appropriate target."

As FAIR point out, "Given such attitudes, perhaps it's not surprising that discussions of the legality of attacking Iraqi TV have been rare in U.S. mainstream media.

"Yet when the White House accused Iraq of violating the Geneva Conventions by airing footage of American POWs, media were eager to engage the subject of international law. It's a shame US media haven't held the US government to the same standards."

The deliberate blurring of the lines dividing journalists from combatants by US and British forces in Iraq sets a dangerous example to other states - not least Iraq, whose treatment of western media was condemned as "scandalous, contemptuous and hostile" by Reporters sans Frontieres general secretary Robert Menard last month.

The cavalier attitude of the US and Britain to the media's rights in time of war, has, by making one group of journalists targets, dramatically increased the risk to all journalists - now and in the future.

[Glenn]

Those are serious charges that virtually no one at this point can responsibly make. It is so pathethic how lightly activist types can go around calling people murders and such while they are sitting and home NOT being fired at. Whether you are pro war or anti war, you must realize that if you go and stand in the middle of a war, there is a reasonable chance that you will get killed. Common sense must not apply however, when scadalous stories of conspriacy and murder can be levied to support the cause of the day. Sure, it is worth investigating and sure it is important to be vigilant. But this is not investigating, it is accusing. I take great offense to that. I am American. I am not a big pro-goverment guy, but I know other Americans and I know soliders. You are making very heavy accusations against these people. It is easy to do this anonymously from your rocking chair at home. It furthers your cause right? Most people who say and write this stuff don't even really believe it. They just want their cause to benefit from the backlash of the sensational story of the day. Never would they consider that these journalists are standing in the middle of a war on purpose. Then they are surprised when they get killed? A war crime? Probably not, but Darwinism either way. Never would they consider that the journalists in Baghdad are speaking at gunpoint from their Iraqi minders. Unless you were in that tank, I suggest that your accusations are irresponsible at best.

[nicky g]

The al-Jazeera buildings in both cases were hit by guided missiles, not tank fire. They had given their coordinates to US forces, who knew exactly where they were.

"Unless you were in that tank, I suggest that your accusations are irresponsible at best. "

As I said, it wasn't a tank. But regardless, if you take that attitude you allow soldiers to do what ever they please, and make them accountable to only themselves. What about the journalists who say they were deliberately targeted by forces who knew they posed no threats, and whoinsist there were no Iraqi forces in the vicinity? Doesn't their perspective count? Are they being irresponsible?

[Glenn]

"As I said, it wasn't a tank"

I apologize, change it to "on the battlefied". I was talking about the Palestine hotel where similar claims were made.

"What about the journalists who say they were deliberately targeted by forces who knew they posed no threats, and whoinsist there were no Iraqi forces in the vicinity? Doesn't their perspective count? Are they being irresponsible? "

1. They are speaking at gunpoint from Iraqi forces.
2. How would they know if they were deliberatly targeted? Knowing that something blew up near you is significantly different than knowing you were deliberately targreted.
3. It is hard for me to trust the judgement of someone who says they were "surprised" that he is not safe in the middle of a war zone.

No one knows what happened yet, but people are quick to use this "atrocity" at propaganda. This imediate response armchair quarterbacking is a bunch of crap. No one will know what really happened anywhere until the war is over.

[nicky g]

"No one will know what really happened anywhere until the war is over.
"

You're right. It looks deliberate to me but none of us can say for sure. That said, they've yet to come up with much of an explanation for what happened.

[Graham]

Further to this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,932809,00.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,932707,00.html

Central command claimed troops were being fired upon from the buildings, before firing back, while two British reporters - for Sky and the BBC - claim no firing occurred before the Palestine Hotel was attacked by coalition fire.
Like I heard someone say before - this one hasn't passed the smell test yet.

G

[nicky g]

From the first link you posted:

"During the Afghan war, two supposedly smart US bombs hit the Reuters office in Kabul and many suspect the attack was no accident. It happened at a strategic moment, two hours before the Northern Alliance took over the city."

[Dr Wogga]

...ever. As bin laden's slimy mouthpiece al jazeera is as much in bed with our enemy as the rest of the phony arab world

[nicky g]

Is that you, Dick?

[Ray Zee]

if anyone purposely attacked news media then it should be a war crime.

the big however, is when that news center is in the middle of the battle zone. then its hard not to include it in attacks if it is even only remotely used for the ememies purposes.

also if the media is using its power in a way that compromises your efforts to win or risks your troops with its coveraqe. also if it gives aid or comfort to the enemy it becomes the enemy, as its no longer an impartial view.