Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
100 words for 100 days: submit your 100 word essay and get published on AlterNet
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

The War on Al Jazeera

By Jeremy Scahill, The Nation. Posted December 3, 2005.


What to do when the war you crafted starts getting bad press? According to a recently leaked memo, Bush would have liked to shoot the messenger -- literally.
Advertisement

Nothing puts the lie to the Bush Administration's absurd claim that it invaded Iraq to spread democracy throughout the Middle East more decisively than its ceaseless attacks on Al Jazeera, the institution that has done more than any other to break the stranglehold over information previously held by authoritarian forces, whether monarchs, military strongmen, occupiers or ayatollahs.

The United States bombed its offices in Afghanistan in 2001, shelled the Basra hotel where Al Jazeera journalists were the only guests in April 2003, killed Iraq correspondent Tareq Ayoub a few days later in Baghdad and imprisoned several Al Jazeera reporters (including at Guantánamo), some of whom say they were tortured. In addition to the military attacks, the US-backed Iraqi government banned the network from reporting in Iraq.

Then in late November came a startling development: Britain's Daily Mirror reported that during an April 2004 White House meeting with British Prime Minister Tony Blair, George W. Bush floated the idea of bombing Al Jazeera's international headquarters in Qatar. This allegation was based on leaked "Top Secret" minutes of the Bush-Blair summit.

British Attorney General Lord Goldsmith has activated the Official Secrets Act, threatening any publication that publishes any portion of the memo (he has already brought charges against a former Cabinet staffer and a former parliamentary aide). So while we don't yet know the contents of the memo, we do know that at the time of Bush's meeting with Blair, the Administration was in the throes of a very public, high-level temper tantrum directed against Al Jazeera. The meeting took place on April 16, at the peak of the first U.S. siege of Falluja, and Al Jazeera was one of the few news outlets broadcasting from inside the city. Its exclusive footage was being broadcast by every network from CNN to the BBC.

The Falluja offensive, one of the bloodiest assaults of the U.S. occupation, was a turning point. In two weeks that April, thirty marines were killed as local guerrillas resisted U.S. attempts to capture the city. Some 600 Iraqis died, many of them women and children. Al Jazeera broadcast from inside the besieged city, beaming images to the world. On live TV the network gave graphic documentary evidence disproving U.S. denials that it was killing civilians. It was a public relations disaster, and the United States responded by attacking the messenger.

Just a few days before Bush allegedly proposed bombing the network, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Falluja, Ahmed Mansour, reported live on the air, "Last night we were targeted by some tanks, twice ... but we escaped. The U.S. wants us out of Falluja, but we will stay." On April 9 Washington demanded that Al Jazeera leave the city as a condition for a cease-fire. The network refused.

Mansour wrote that the next day "American fighter jets fired around our new location, and they bombed the house where we had spent the night before, causing the death of the house owner Mr. Hussein Samir. Due to the serious threats we had to stop broadcasting for few days because every time we tried to broadcast the fighter jets spotted us we became under their fire."

On April 11 senior military spokesperson Mark Kimmitt declared, "The stations that are showing Americans intentionally killing women and children are not legitimate news sources. That is propaganda, and that is lies." On April 15 Donald Rumsfeld echoed those remarks in distinctly undiplomatic terms, calling Al Jazeera's reporting "vicious, inaccurate and inexcusable…. It's disgraceful what that station is doing." It was the very next day, according to the Daily Mirror, that Bush told Blair of his plan. "He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere," a source told the Mirror. "There's no doubt what Bush wanted to do -- and no doubt Blair didn't want him to do it."

Al Jazeera's real transgression during the "war on terror" is a simple one: being there. While critical of the Bush Administration and U.S. policy, it is not anti-American -- it is independent. In fact, it has angered almost every Arab government at one point or another and has been kicked out of or sanctioned by many Arab countries.

It holds the rare distinction of being shut down by both Saddam and the new US-backed government. It was the first Arab station to broadcast interviews with Israeli officials. It is hardly the Al Qaeda mouthpiece the Administration has wanted us to believe it is. The real threat Al Jazeera poses is in its unembedded journalism -- precisely what is needed now to uncover the truth about the Bush-Blair meeting.

Conservative British MP Boris Johnson, who is by trade a journalist and is editor of The Spectator magazine, has offered to publish the memo if it is leaked to him. It should be published, and if any journal is prosecuted for doing so, it should be backed up by media organizations everywhere. The war against Al Jazeera and other unembedded journalists has been conducted with far too little outcry from the powerful media organizations of the world. It shouldn't take another bombing for this to be a story.

Digg!

Jeremy Scahill is a correspondent for the national radio and TV program Democracy Now!. He has spent extensive time reporting from Iraq and the former Yugoslavia, where he covered the 1999 NATO bombing.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from AlterNet! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
criminal as with all things Bush&Co in Iraq
Posted by: ShaSpirit on Dec 3, 2005 12:12 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How to we put a stop to these War Crimes? Some in EU are trying to do that now, but it would be so much better if We The People could bring these criminals to US courts. I am so tried of watching this happen and being unable to do anything about it.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

When the truth hurts
Posted by: IanA on Dec 3, 2005 2:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The test of this American Fascist regime is that at every turn the truth hurts.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: When the truth hurts Posted by: giles
How does one say in Arabic: three cheers for Al Jeezera!
Posted by: gh on Dec 3, 2005 3:40 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Once upon a time, America had a free press. Not today. Thank God someone is telling the whole truth out there! Now, how do we get this news source on our media too?

I have had it with Bushie Fascism--Bush in a Bubble--Bush the most obviously corrupted President we have ever had. We all know it and yet, why hasn't anyone in Congress called for his impeachment, as well as Cheney's? gh

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Al Jazeera Reporters Set Example
Posted by: david.model@senecac.on.ca on Dec 3, 2005 4:26 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Al Jazeera's boldness in uncovering stories in Iraq and elsewhere stands in sharp contrast to American mainstream reporters who are nothing more than stenographers for the pentagon.

Since 1989 during the immoral invasion of Panama, American mainstream reporters conceded complete control over their stories to the military.

First it was "press pools" whereby only one reporter was designated each day to cover the story du jour accompanied by military personnel. Not only did the military choose the story, they also censored it before it was reported back to the remaining reporters who were cowering while waiting for their pap.

The owners of the mainstream media lodged a perfunctory complaint about supression of freedom of the press and then dropped it without so much as a critical murmer.

The latest method of controlling the press is to embed them with the military. The term begs the expression "strange bedfellows". By collaberating with the military, the mainstream media has completely sold out and abandoned serving as the fifth estate protecting democracy from tyrants such as President Bush who brooks no dissension even within his inner circle.

Author of "Lying for Empire: How to Commit War Crimes with a Straight Face"

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

It's not really oil stupid!
Posted by: memememem on Dec 3, 2005 6:15 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It is more than that!
There are plenty of sources to document the foregoing.
1- The US $ is the Benchmark/Trading Currency since 1948. Replacing Gold.
2- Imagine that all Trades around the world use the US $: Petrol, Planes, Wheat, Cotton, Ore, Textiles....
Just imagine I am Thai, and I am selling to Germany, I have to trade in US $.
3- Saddam, for obvious reasons started selling his oil in Euros
4- Soon, other Arab Countries showed interest in this.
5- Iran is poised to open an Oil Trading Market in 2006. So bypassing NY and London.... Dear dear. Axis of evil!
6- In the meantime, China is signing Iran and Venezuela direct and is diversifying its currency basket....Dear dear.
7- Russia is also buying Airbus Planes. Will it be in US Dollars?
Guess not.
8-Chavez is travelling to Iran early next year. Venezuela, Major exporter of Oil to US and Iran, Major exporter to China.
China President visited Venezuela recently.
9- China with $ 750 Billion invested in USA
10- Greenspan warning that the National debt is getting out of hand.
10- Staying the course. The Drunken Boat ( read Rimbaud) with the Drunken Skipper on the watch.
Call me a cynic.
Just read Zozby's last poll taken across the ME. Edifying!
Be very scared.
No Baywatch is going to rescue America from this one. Thank your President.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: It's not really oil stupid! Posted by: robchapman
» RE: All I want is Posted by: memememem
» RE: Did you vote? Posted by: memememem
» RE: Did you vote? Posted by: BriMan
» RE: Did you vote? Posted by: memememem
» RE: Did you vote? Posted by: giles
Al jazeera
Posted by: robchapman on Dec 3, 2005 6:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you for the publicizing the memo detailing the Bush Administration plan to bomb al-Jazera.

We can only breathe a sigh of relief and thank our British allies for dissuading Turd Blossom and his charge from carrying out their plan.

The British plan of backing and cossetting Bush paid off in this instance. However, it is too high a price to pay for continued association with the Bushies.

Americans should not be bitter or enraged with the Germans and French for not going along with the Iraqi invasion, nor should they be angry with the Koreans, Spaniards, Italians or even the British as they withdraw their forces from Iraq.

Bush continues to demonstrate an utter inability to grasp the important issues in the war on terrorism. Bush has no plan for getting us off the treadmill of death he has created in Iraq.

While our forces are tied down in the useless and unnecesary war in Iraq, the terrorists are free to pick and choose wherever they want to strike. They continue to us this freedom to devastate the West itself and pro-Western elements in the Islamic World. Bush's only response to his failure is to continue to fail.

Our allies are realizing that with our go it alone mentality, it is better for them just to leave us alone.

Robert Chapman
Lansing, New York

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Al jazeera Posted by: owleyes
» RE: Al jazeera Posted by: Falang
» RE: Al jazeera Posted by: memememem
Lies, lies, and more lies
Posted by: Basenjis on Dec 3, 2005 6:47 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Surely we've reached the end of the revelations of lies, deceptions and crimes of this basest of government administrations. What have they NOT done or at least not thought of doing in violation of everything we hoped America stood for? Al Jazeera and Iraqi blogs were successful in getting out eye witness information on the Iraqi war that our own journalists either could not or would not report. Whether or not George Bush, like some immature, unprincipled adolescent delinquent, actually suggested bombing a foreign news target for contradicting his own propaganda, who can doubt that it sounds exactly like him?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

agitator church and state
Posted by: eileenflmng on Dec 3, 2005 7:17 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
"The real threat Al Jazeera poses is in its unembedded journalism "

The TRUTH is the real threat to this Administration AND mainstream media?

Freelance muckrakers on the Internet are USA's unembedded journalists.

Where is the outrage in USA over the four Christian Peacemakers held hostage in Iraq?

It's been reported on Al Jazeera and is being followed on WAWA BLOG beginning with 11/30/05 entry

http://www.wearewideawake.org

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

WHERE IS WOODWARD NOW?
Posted by: dmstern on Dec 3, 2005 7:48 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Bob Woodward went on Larry King and claimed he would do jail time in Judith Miller's place if asked because he was so concerned about the implications of the Plame investigation on journalists as a whole. Where is he now? Still cozying up with the administration even though it appears that they have been killing journalists who say things they don't like? Any reporter from any nation who doesn't run with this story should be ashamed of themselves. Silence on the matter is as bad as conspiring to kill the Al-Jazeera journalists themselves. The fact that Alternet is the only place I see this critical to our democracy story printed is terrifying (no offense Alternet.)

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WHERE IS WOODWARD NOW? Posted by: Rod from Canada
» RE: WHERE IS WOODWARD NOW? Posted by: dmstern
WHAT CAN YOU BELIEVE TODAY?
Posted by: cold2touch on Dec 3, 2005 10:22 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The trouble with liars is that even when they speak the truth, you can't believe them.
This is why I now question the veracity of reports that paint Saddam as a devil incarnate. Apparently, a poll shows something like over 30% Iraqis would vote for him today. About same as Bush's numbers in USA and don't forget that Kurds and Shiites want their own ethnic candidates. In absence of any real data, all I can say is that his face looks more normal and less twisted by wickedness than Bush, Cheney or Rumsfeld. Notice how they always grimace, sneer and have mouths off to one side?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: WHAT CAN YOU BELIEVE TODAY? Posted by: cold2touch
We have a most discriminating press
Posted by: Basenjis on Dec 3, 2005 11:07 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
and, as I remember the details and the photographs of the gruesome slaughter of Saddam Hussein's two barbaric sons, was suitable for publication, but information on secret prisons and torture had to be leaked. What a twisted sense of what is openly permissable and what must be withheld from the public.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

America never really had a Nazi purge did it?
Posted by: owlbear1 on Dec 3, 2005 11:36 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Busted the Commies but left the Nazis alone. Proabably had to to with their Lawyers.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"BushCo as Lowbrow Theater"
Posted by: monkeywrench on Dec 3, 2005 11:35 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Startling revelation after startling revelation after startling revelation have come out of secret documents, the Downing Street Memo and elsewhere, yet the media and public seems not to care. Bush and Co. maintain their advertising- and propaganda-generated magical properties in the face of overwhelming evidence of their colossal incompetence and Hitler-like fascist qualities. This is not democratic political pluralism; it is mass insanity.

If we are ever going to become once again the rational nation we once were, our population will have to drag their heads out of their as...uh,...self-induced hallucinations born of Hollywood fantasies, and actually begin to think again. I don't hold out much hope. John Wayne lives on in the White House – and we've become the indians.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

JH
Posted by: Jeanne on Dec 3, 2005 4:54 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
It's an interesting comparison. We pay Iraqi papers and journalists to write and print positive news stories about US. Meanwhile, we wish to bomb journalists from al jazeera for simply reporting/broadcasting video of events as they occur. Pay for what is (possibly) fiction, destroy what is (probably) fact.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: JH Posted by: cold2touch
Fighting for freedom
Posted by: aameriowa on Dec 3, 2005 9:59 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
When will the American public wake up and unmask these hypocrites? If we bomb a TV station and we praise the victory of thugs in the recent Egypt election.
Truth is: as long as the thugs are our boys. It is fine. And Aljazeera does not deserve freedpom because they are not our boys.
It is not freedom that we are fighting for. Why do the American people see that.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Fighting for freedom Posted by: dragonfire6012
» RE: Fighting for freedom Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Fighting for freedom Posted by: BriMan
» RE: Fighting for freedom Posted by: EncinoM
» RE: Fighting for freedom Posted by: tcx2
If you want a picture of the future...
Posted by: gltirebiter on Dec 4, 2005 12:38 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
imagine a boot stomping on a human face - forever.

George Orwell

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]