(Deutsche Version am Ende des Beitrags)
(Translation by Hartmut Lau)
Here’s a neat little example of biased reporting the German media have developed into an art form.
The following AP Germany report appeared in numerous German print media over the last few days (our translation):
New Allegations of Prisoner Mistreatment in IraqPortland/USA (AP) U.S. soldiers have made new allegations against their own supervisors. …
First impression? Abu Ghraib continued. New allegations have been made, old suspicions are being confirmed. They’re torturing again, and doing it because of directives from on high.
A report published Sunday in the American newspaper The Oregon (sic) indicates that the abuse of numerous prisoners by Iraqi policemen was tolerated by U.S. commanders.
This sentence finally makes it clear that it was Iraqi policemen, not - as in Abu Ghraib - American soldiers who were responsible for mistreatment. However, the insinuation is obvious – US commanders are complicit in the Iraqi policemen’s deeds. (An aside – the newspaper is The Oregonian, not The Oregon).
And only in subsequent sentences do we find a more precise description of the incident:
The newspaper’s sources are Oregon National Guard soldiers who had tried to help the mistreated Iraqis. They had, however, been ordered to leave the prisoners to their tormentors.
Here, by contrast, is the original American AP report, upon which the German AP report is based:
Soldiers' Rescue Attempt in Iraq RebuffedPORTLAND, Ore. - Oregon National Guard soldiers attempted to stop Iraqi jailers from abusing dozens of prisoners, but were ordered to return the prisoners to their abusers and leave, according to a published report. (...)
Neither a direct relationship between the Abu Ghraib abuses nor a claim of any conspiracy between Iraqi policemen mistreating their prisoners and US commanders is mentioned in the American AP report.
Why? Because the facts are these: American soldiers became aware of - presumed – mistreatment of prisoners by Iraqi policemen and intervened in the prison and gave the prisoners first aid. After checking with their commanders they left the prison. The reason? It was the first day after the transfer of sovereignty from the occupation authority to the interim Iraqi government. There was no legal basis for the American soldiers’ intervention. The American authorities wanted to avoid a conflict with the brand new Iraqi government. Rather than continue a direct intervention on the ground the American chain of command elected a political-military approach. They informed Iraqi authorities responsible for supervising the policemen in question.
Apparently this effort was successful, as reported in the original article in The Oregonian:
Guardsmen interviewed for this story said they've watched the detention facility closely since then, and that many of the prisoners were released soon after the raid on the detention facility.The soldiers said they have not seen any further prisoner abuse occur there.
Doesn’t necessarily sound like “New Allegations of Prisoner Mistreatment in Iraq.” The German AP’s report, that the abuse of numerous prisoners by Iraqi policemen "was tolerated by U.S. commanders," is clearly wrong.
How skillfully the German media have associated this incident with the Abu Ghraib abuses can be seen in the following extracts:
Allegations against Senior Officers in Torture ScandalUS Soldiers Alleged To Have Been Ordered To Abandon Prisoners To Iraqi Tormentors
US soldiers have solidified allegations concerning the treatment of Iraqi prisoners against their superiors. A US military court postponed the hearing in case of Lynndie England, a soldier involved in the torture scandal at the Baghdad prison.
Focus Online: Torture In Iraq – Orders To Look The Other Way
Torture HearingJudge Considers Subpoenaing Rumsfeld
According to a media report, US commanders consciously tolerated abuses in Iraq. A Tunisian released from Guantanamo Bay spoke of confessions obtained under duress. The hearing for a female soldier accused of serious crimes has been suspended so that a subpoena to US Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld can be considered.
Abuses ToleratedNew Accusations Against US Troops in Iraq
We really don’t have to comment on this technique any more.
By the way, while searching for the original story in The Oregonian I found this article about a soldier returning to the USA from Iraq in another Oregon newspaper:
Mission accomplishedRoseburg High grad returns after 15 months serving in Iraq
(...) Despite the hardships -- being away from family, witnessing countless deaths and enduring intense heat and dehydration -- Clegg said he and the other soldiers kept their spirits. (...)
Clegg never doubted the reason for fighting the war, and he said the military's presence after the war is just as important as the fight.
"Whenever you take the army out of power ... you still have to stay there to rebuild the country," he said.
He said overall the Iraqi people appreciated the soldiers being there. People would stop them in the street and tell them they were doing a good job.
The unit was patrolling Baghdad in December and hadn't heard that Saddam Hussein had been captured. They found out because of gunshots in the streets.
"It was pretty amazing," he said. "That was one way they celebrated, was with gunfire."
After six years in the Army, Clegg's stint could have been up while he was in Iraq, but he decided to re-enlist for another three years.
"Being in the Army and being able to do my job, that's a fun thing to do," he said.
Tamie Clegg-Wedge was surprised that after more than a year in Iraq, she hasn't noticed any big changes in her son.
And we’ve noticed hardly any reports like this one in the German media – no abuse of Iraqi prisoners, Iraqis that thank the US soldiers, no delayed psychological trauma to the US soldiers. The article simply didn’t have the type of material that German journalists use to weave their Iraq reports.
(Hat tip Gabi)
Deutsche Version
Mißbrauch in irakischem Gefängnis ... oder in den deutschen Medien?
Ein hübsches kleines Beispiel für die von den deutschen Medien zur Perfektion entwickelte Kunst des Kampagnenjournalismus...
In den vergangenen Tagen geisterte diese Meldung von AP Deutschland durch die deutschen Medien:
Neue Vorwürfe zum Umgang mit Gefangenen im IrakPortland/USA (AP) Bezüglich der Behandlung irakischer Gefangener haben US-Soldaten neue Vorwürfe gegen ihre eigenen Vorgesetzten erhoben. (...)
Der erste Eindruck: Fortsetzung von Abu Ghraib. Neue Vorwürfe liegen vor, die die alten erhärten. Es wird weiter gefoltert, und zwar auf Anweisung "von oben".
Ein am Sonntag veröffentlichter Bericht der amerikanischen Tageszeitung «The Oregon» legt nahe, dass die Misshandlung zahlreicher Häftlinge durch irakische Polizisten von US-Kommandeuren geduldet wurde.
Dieser Satz macht erstmals deutlich: es waren nicht, wie in Abu Ghraib, amerikanische Soldaten für die Mißhandlungen verantwortlich, sondern irakische Polizisten. Aber: es wird kaum verholen eine Komplizenschaft zwischen den mißhandelnden irakischen Polizisten und US-Kommandeuren unterstellt (übrigens heißt die Zeitung "The Oregonian" und nicht "The Oregon"). Erst in den nächsten Sätzen wird der Vorfall präziser umschrieben:
Die Zeitung beruft sich auf Soldaten der Nationalgarde von Oregon, die versucht hätten, den misshandelten Irakern zu helfen. Sie hätten jedoch Befehl erhalten, die Häftlinge mit ihren Peinigern allein zu lassen.
Zum Vergleich die ursprüngliche amerikanische AP-Meldung, auf die sich AP Deutschland bezieht:
Soldiers' Rescue Attempt in Iraq RebuffedPORTLAND, Ore. - Oregon National Guard soldiers attempted to stop Iraqi jailers from abusing dozens of prisoners, but were ordered to return the prisoners to their abusers and leave, according to a published report. (...)
Die amerikanische AP-Meldung stellt keinen indirekten Zusammenhang mit den Abu Ghraib-Mißhandlungen dar und verzichtet auch auf die Behauptung einer Komplizenschaft zwischen mißhandelnden irakischen Polizisten und US-Kommandeuren.
Denn dies sind die Fakten: amerikanische Soldaten wurden auf - vermutliche - Mißhandlungen von irakischen Gefangenen durch irakische Polizisten aufmerksam; sie griffen im Gefängnis ein und leisteten Erste Hilfe. Nach Rücksprache mit ihren Kommandeuren zogen sie wieder aus dem Gefängnis ab. Der Grund: Der Einsatz fand am ersten Tag nach der Übergabe der Macht im Irak an die Iraker statt. Es gab keine rechtliche Grundlage für das Eingreifen der US-Soldaten. Die amerikanischen Behörden fürchteten einen Konflikt mit der gerade erst installierten neuen irakischen Regierung. Statt einer direkten Intervention vor Ort durch US-Soldaten wählten ihre Vorgesetzten einen politisch-diplomatischen Weg: den der Information irakischer Aufsichtsgremien.
Offensichtlich nicht ohne Erfolg, wie es im ursprünglichen Artikel in "The Oregonian" heißt:
Guardsmen interviewed for this story said they've watched the detention facility closely since then, and that many of the prisoners were released soon after the raid on the detention facility.The soldiers said they have not seen any further prisoner abuse occur there.
Klingt nicht unbedingt wie "Neue Vorwürfe zum Umgang mit Gefangenen im Irak"... Die Aussage in der AP Deutschland-Meldung, "dass die Misshandlung zahlreicher Häftlinge durch irakische Polizisten von US-Kommandeuren geduldet wurde", ist eindeutig falsch.
Wie gekonnt im übrigen in den deutschen Medien dieser Vorfall mit den Abu Ghraib-Mißhandlungen vernetzt wird, beleg diese Auszüge:
Vorwürfe im Folterskandal treffen VorgesetzteUS-Soldaten sollen auf höheren Befehl hin Häftlinge mit irakischen Peinigern allein gelassen haben
Bezüglich der Behandlung irakischer Gefangener haben US-Soldaten Vorwürfe gegen ihre Vorgesetzten erhärtet. Ein US-Militärgericht vertagte die Anhörung der in den Folterskandal im Bagdader Gefängnis Abu Ghraib verstrickten Lynndie England.
Folter in Irak - Befehl zum Wegsehen
FOLTER-ANHÖRUNG
Richterin prüft Vorladung RumsfeldsEinem Medienbericht zufolge sollen US-Kommandeure im Irak Misshandlungen bewusst geduldet haben. Ein aus Guantanamo Bay entlassener Tunesier sprach von erzwungenen Geständnissen. Die Anhörung der schwer belasteten US-Soldatin England wurde derweilausgesetzt, um eine Vorladung von US-Verteidigungsminister Rumsfeld zu prüfen.
Duldung vom Mißhandlungen
Neue Vorwürfe gegen US-Truppen im Irak
Man muß diesen Stil eigentlich überhaupt nicht mehr kommentieren.
Übrigens fand ich auf der Suche nach der Originalquelle der Story in "The Oregonian" diesen Bericht in einer anderen Zeitung aus Oregon über einen aus dem Irak in die USA zurückkehrenden US-Soldaten:
Mission accomplishedRoseburg High grad returns after 15 months serving in Iraq
(...) Despite the hardships -- being away from family, witnessing countless deaths and enduring intense heat and dehydration -- Clegg said he and the other soldiers kept their spirits. (...)
Clegg never doubted the reason for fighting the war, and he said the military's presence after the war is just as important as the fight.
"Whenever you take the army out of power ... you still have to stay there to rebuild the country," he said.
He said overall the Iraqi people appreciated the soldiers being there. People would stop them in the street and tell them they were doing a good job.
The unit was patrolling Baghdad in December and hadn't heard that Saddam Hussein had been captured. They found out because of gunshots in the streets.
"It was pretty amazing," he said. "That was one way they celebrated, was with gunfire."
After six years in the Army, Clegg's stint could have been up while he was in Iraq, but he decided to re-enlist for another three years.
"Being in the Army and being able to do my job, that's a fun thing to do," he said.
Tamie Clegg-Wedge was surprised that after more than a year in Iraq, she hasn't noticed any big changes in her son.
Und wir haben kaum einen Bericht dieser Art in den deutschen Medien festgestellt. Keine Mißhandlungen irakischer Gefangenen, Iraker, die den US-Soldaten dankten, keine psychischen Spätschäden von US-Soldaten: das ist nicht der Stoff, aus dem die deutsche Irak-Berichterstattung gewebt ist...
See also code: theWebSocket;, a nurse blogging from Oregon (and one of the original entries on my blogroll).
Posted by: Scott | August 12, 2004 at 05:32 PM
It's amazing. Is it a language barrier that permits this to happen?
Posted by: Joe N. | August 13, 2004 at 12:39 AM
The news lede from the Oregonian was Ordered to just walk away it was the U.S. version of the AP story that slanted the story not the German version. They were ordered by US officers. The lede for the US AP is actaully misleading: "rebuffed"? By who? The US AP lede makes it sound like it isn;t US officials that decided that US soldiers couldn't help prevent the abuse.
This was left out too: "We did not generally put good people in." which is an understantement.
Posted by: Tom Murphy | August 14, 2004 at 01:21 PM
The news lede from the Oregonian was Ordered to just walk away it was the U.S. version of the AP story that slanted the story not the German version. They were ordered by US officers. The lede for the US AP is actaully misleading: "rebuffed"? By who? The US AP lede makes it sound like it isn;t US officials that decided that US soldiers couldn't help prevent the abuse.
This was left out too: "We did not generally put good people in." which is an understantement.
Posted by: Tom Murphy | August 14, 2004 at 01:39 PM
It's the perfect situation from the leftish point of view. The US commander cannot do right no matter what. Either he takes over, showing the Iraqi 'government' to be a sham with no authority. Or he 'allows' abuse of the prisoners to proceed. The monkey has only two ways out of the cage. Except that he found a third way out, something which can safely be ignored....
If something happens which the media fails to report, it didn't happen. Right?
Posted by: Don | August 15, 2004 at 09:06 PM
"It's the perfect situation from the leftish point of view. The US commander cannot do right no matter what"
Look, that is crap. No one would fault a US commander for not returning torture victims to their torturers. Your premise is dishonest. The point the left had been making was that the US could not possibly use human rights concerns as an excuse for invading Iraq because the history has been that the US policy makers don't give a shit. Sure enough, we can see it right away. what kind of bastard returns torture victims to their torturers?
you can try to convince yourself that the left would complain if the US commander "interfered" by refusing to allow these people from going back to their abusers but you are only fooling yourself.
And you are fooling yourself with your notion that the Iraqi 'government' isn't already a sham. The people running it were selected by the US. Iyad Allawi
It never occured to you that the US should have allowed the Iraqi people to pick who they wanted for their government? If an election wasn't posible a poll could have been conducted to get a very good idea who they want instead of imposing US selected stooges. (in the case of Iyad Allawi, apparently murderous.
Posted by: Tom Murphy | August 16, 2004 at 05:52 AM
Ich möchte auf diesen Artikel in der WELT hinweisen:
Der alte Traum vom Siegfrieden
Wer hat Schuld am Ausgang des Ersten Weltkriegs? Erwiderung auf Jörg Friedrich
von Rainer Rother
...
Begeistert von den Aussichten jenes Siegfriedens, zu dem es nicht kam - des perfekten deutschen Sieges, wie ihn "kein Cäsar, kein Fridericus, kein Napoleon" erstritten hätten -, sieht er (Friedrich) in den Alliierten die eigentlich Schuldigen für die Verlängerung des Schlachtens. Bemerkenswert ist die Sprache, in der dies zum Ausdruck kommt. Besonders die USA, denen es nicht gelungen sei, "ihre Neutralität gegen den eigenen Erwerbssinn zu verteidigen", geraten in schlechtes Licht. US-Präsident Wilson, "Sohn eines Predigers", hat es Friedrich besonders angetan: Seine "Unschuldsmiene" verdrießt ihn so wie damals das Deutsche Reich. Wilsons angeblicher Wettlauf mit dem Papst um den "Rang des Verkünders der Weltordnung" habe die "Weltparole" geboren vom "Krieg unvereinbarer Grundsätze: Barbarei oder Zivilisation, Despotismus oder Demokratie". Es ist die Rede vom "bekennenden Kreuzrittertum", das von Washington aus in die geistige Welt gefahren sei. Wäre hier nicht die deutscherseits seit 1914 verkündete Auseinandersetzung zwischen deutscher "Kultur" und westlicher "Zivilisation" wenigstens eine Erwähnung wert gewesen?
...
http://www.welt.de/data/2004/08/17/320074.html
Posted by: Gabi | August 17, 2004 at 07:12 AM