Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
NYT on WikiLeaks: Move Along, No Atrocity to See Here
One of the main media tropes regarding WikiLeaks' release of State Department cables last year was that there was either nothing new to be learned, or that private conversations they revealed were remarkably consistent with what U.S. officials were saying publicly. That was totally misleading, but for many pundits the story seemed to end there.
This cell phone photo was shot by a resident of Ishaqi on March 15, 2006, of bodies Iraqi police said were of children executed by U.S. troops after a night raid there. A State Department cable obtained by WikiLeaks quotes the U.N. investigator of extrajudicial killings as saying an autopsy showed the residents of the house had been handcuffed and shot in the head, including children under the age of 5. McClatchy obtained the photo from a resident when the incident occurred.
Now comes the release of thousands more documents. If you've been reading the New York Times, you know these cables exist. But you don't know much more than that. On August 29, the Times focused on a dispute over whether some names in the cable weren't properly redacted to protect these individuals--"a shift of tactics that has alarmed American officials." WikiLeaks disagrees.
In yesterday's edition of the Times (9/1/11), reporter Scott Shane gives a few examples of what's actually in the cables: criticism of former Philippines President Corazon Aquino, something about the Australian air safety system, human trafficking in Botswana. The rest of the article discusses the controversies over redactions, and whether or not someone has gained access to the entire trove of cables.
Shane adds: "News organizations in dozens of countries are panning for nuggets in the latest and largest dump of diplomatic cables by WikiLeaks."
One "nugget" the Times seems to have trouble finding: A cable that details how U.S. forces executed 11 civilians in a night raid in Iraq in 2006. The victims appear to have been handcuffed. U.S. forces apparently destroyed the evidence--the house--in an airstrike.
McClatchy has a piece by Matthew Schofield (8/31/11) summarizing the matter ( "WikiLeaks: Iraqi Children in U.S. Raid Shot in Head, UN Says"). He reports:
A U.S. diplomatic cable made public by WikiLeaks provides evidence that U.S. troops executed at least 10 Iraqi civilians, including a woman in her 70s and a five-month-old infant, then called in an airstrike to destroy the evidence, during a controversial 2006 incident in the central Iraqi town of Ishaqi.
The unclassified cable, which was posted on WikiLeaks' website last week, contained questions from a United Nations investigator about the incident, which had angered local Iraqi officials, who demanded some kind of action from their government. U.S. officials denied at the time that anything inappropriate had occurred.
But Philip Alston, the UN's special rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said in a communication to American officials dated 12 days after the March 15, 2006, incident that autopsies performed in the Iraqi city of Tikrit showed that all the dead had been handcuffed and shot in the head. Among the dead were four women and five children. The children were all 5 years old or younger.
Schofield adds:
At the time, American military officials in Iraq said the accounts of townspeople who witnessed the events were highly unlikely to be true, and they later said the incident didn't warrant further investigation. Military officials also refused to reveal which units might have been involved in the incident.
The Daily Mirror (9/1/11) also has a piece today on this incident ("WikiLeaks Reveals Atrocities by U.S. forces"). John Glaser at Antiwar.com wrote a piece on August 29 detailing the contents of the cable--the first account that I can find, so he deserves credit for that.
But at this point, major U.S. papers like the New York Times are still searching for this nugget.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
18 Comments so far
Show AllPeople who read the NYT think they are well-informed. But they are reading a highly redacted document, with names and facts omitted to protect the comfortable and the guilty. Thank you Wikileaks for bringing some of these things to light.
Whatever. We are a nation without shame.
Sadly, you are correct, we are a nation without shame, because we have seen no accountability. Unfortunately, they have 'move us along' to all their wrongs. As though people should not be held accountability. The Scale of Justice is not working in America.
While moving us along to the wrongs, they are silent regarding the sale of American prisons. Prisoners for profit? We have more people in prison than any other country in the world, yet we are now going to have corporations profitting from the 'War on Drugs'. War being faught on American soil, based basically on 'madness'
So, once again we are watching an un-just war on our own shores and we are still moving along. How sad a country can we be?
9/11 hurt us far worse than people realize. We 'move along' to anything, basically because the 'wrongs' are too painful to address. It's easier to just move along. Sad, sad, sad.
What should be especially noted in this important article is that the victims of this massacre were all handcuffed and shot in the head. After doing a little research I discovered that some of the victims were:
* Hawara'a [age 5]
* Yousif Ma'arouf [5 years of age]
* Aisah [age 3]
* Husam [5 months old]
* A 74 year old woman named Turkiya Majeed Ali
It was bad enough that these poor wretches were executed execution style. One has to wonder why it was also necessary to handcuff them before they were killed. Did these brave soldiers expect that a five month old infant and a 74 year old woman as well as the other children would somehow pose serious threats to our super heroes if they were not restrained by handcuffs?
"No body of men can be induced to do another man's killing for him unless he can convince them that they may honorably do so. The percentage of blackguards and sadists who enjoy cruelty for its own sake have to pretend that they are patriots and ministers of justice to secure the toleration of their fellow citizens."-George Bernard Shaw [1856-1950], Irish dramatist and political activist
"The world is drenched in mutual slaughter... Held to be a crime when committed by individuals, homicide is called a virtue when committed by the state."- Saint Cyprian [3rd century], Carthaginian bishop and early Christian writer
"Rise up and take a stance...for everyone who's silenced by oppression"
We hope all who work for and believe in peace and justice will find encouragement in our new music video for the song "Breakdown," from the EP Chants, Woes & Lamentations, released at iTunes in May. In these very troubling times, we all could benefit from knowing we're not alone in our views, and this music video connects our message to current events. You can find our band page at www.facebook.com/LazarLives If you like the music, please share with those who might also be encouraged by it, like our page and leave a comment!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f4KAfE3SEIo&feature=share
"But at this point, major U.S. papers like the New York Times are still searching for this nugget." More accurate: they are actively covering up this 'nugget' of a heinous war crime.
No, they don't consider any killing by Amereichan troops (or politicians) "war crimes." When we do it, it is for a good cause. When other people/countries do it, it is a war crime.
That's always the difference.
Yes, so why is the author pretending that the MSM is "still searching?" They're not "searching", they're deliberately covering up. Big difference.
Yesterday when CD published the McClatchy article on the mass murder of handcuffed babies, I asked when would the MSM pick up on the story. Some suggested the MSM would trot out the best apologists and accept their story. But it appears the MSM will do what they do best -- ignore it.
Who gives a fuck about little dead Muslim babies the NYTimes says, when we have more important things to worry about like whether Barack the Baby Killer will speak on Wednesday or Thursday. When I walk around and see normal looking Americans, I wonder whether they were the people who shot those children. Was it my neighbor, or my neighbor's son? Certainly someone did it and those people are among us now, walking on our streets, living next door to unsuspecting people. Mass murderers live among us and they almost certainly will kill again, because once you can justify killing a child, murder becomes you.
I truly feel for our military, but those in positions of power, who authorized, or condoned actions like this, should be held accountable! George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld should be held accountable.
They have confessed 'out loud'! They willfully broke the law, with no accountability. When did we decide facts didn't matter? When did we decide law don't apply to them? Why did we decide they should not be held accountable? What kind of example does that set for the future?
No accountability, no justice?
"When I walk around and see normal looking Americans, I wonder whether they were the people who shot those children. Was it my neighbor, or my neighbor's son? Certainly someone did it and those people are among us now, walking on our streets, living next door to unsuspecting people. Mass murderers live among us and they almost certainly will kill again, because once you can justify killing a child, murder becomes you." I sometimes feel the same way. If these who perpetrated these crimes, never see the light of justice, may they be awakened night after night, screaming with images in their heads, until loss of sleep and utter shameful guilt causes them to blow their own fucking brains out.
I don't condemn or critically second-guess Wikileaks' and Julian Assange's strategy of partnering with select corporate mass-media institutions and coordinating major document releases in recent months.
I'm sure Assange understood that this was always a deal with the devil-- that newspapers like the New York Times and the Guardian sought more to co-opt and control Wikileaks than altruistically enable and facilitate its mission.
Both of these Establishment propaganda organs have manifested a love/hate relationship with Assange and Wikileaks: publishing material and at least tacitly championing Wikileaks when it's in their interests to do so, and likewise blithely downplaying-- including simply ignoring-- or repudiating material when it's in their interests to do so.
It brings to mind classic lines by Groucho Marx as Professor Quincy Adams Wagstaff in "Horsefeathers":
"Now I know where I'm at. I'm dealing with a couple of snakes."
Later: "If there was a snake here, I'd apologize."
NYT wouldn't want to offend its jewish community by showing pics that favor arabs
To the Times, style matters, substance doesn't.
The United States is a criminally insane country. The insanity consists of the fact that criminality is equated with morality and patriotism. Just like a mentally ill person who receives no treatment, this country will continue to spiral down further and further into the dark depths of insanity until it destroys itself, and perhaps the earth as well.
"NYT on WikiLeaks: Move Along, No Atrocity to See Here"
But, dear MSM NYT et al, don't you remember that you're actually partisan in the unethical conditions revealed by Wikileaks? So why should we the public have any trust at all in you?
If you keep on spewing text and soundbits keeping up and defending your unethical conduct, shouldn't we the public feel stupid for partly believing you?
And when you report on "unrest" among US public, should we be surprised that you profess not to understand its origin, when the grievances behind the "unrest" to a large extent is your lies?
Should we eternally believe that though you've lied before, now you don't any more?
Who should we trust - dear MainStream Media New York Times and all - you or our own observations? - Yes, I know your answer consistently will be: trust US.
But can't you discern a complaint politely posed as a rhetorical question when you're posed with one? Do you really have to pretend to be that stupid, in order to keep up the claim that we the public are so stupid that we should trust you still, after all the proven lies?
Well then, no more question about it: you MSM are not to be believed, nor trusted!
If a "news medium" is owned by one or more corporations, it serves the corportations, of course. - That's an obligation spelled out in all corporations' charters: the profit interest has legal precedence over the public interest.
not even that pinhead rusty calley handcuffed little children before murdering them.
and the worst part is that, once again, the military claims to have investigated the allegations and found nothing amiss.
monsters, all.
The Whitewashing of atrocities at its finest. What the United States has always been famous for.