IOL News via Reuters
26 April 2008
Ugandan security forces on Saturday raided the offices of a magazine seen as critical of President Yoweri Museveni's government, arresting three journalists and taking computers, a lawyer said.
It was the second time the bi-monthly magazine "Independence" has been raided since its launch in October last year.
"They have accused my clients of being in possession of seditious materials and publishing inflammatory materials," said Bob Kasango, the publication's legal representative.
Dozens of security officers went to the magazine's offices at 8.30 a.m. (0530 GMT), arresting managing editor Andrew Mwenda, consulting editor Odobo Bichachi and journalist John Njoroge, he said.
"We think the government is not happy with a story The Independence published in a recent issue exposing atrocities committed by government forces during the war," Kasango said, adding that the security officers took away various PCs.
Government officials and police were not immediately available for comment. In power for two decades, Museveni's Government has been criticised by human rights groups for authoritarian tendencies, including sometimes suppressing independent media.
(Reporting by Francis Kwera; Writing by Wangui Wanina; Editing by Ibon Villelabeitia)
26 April, 2008
Croatian Army Accused of Shelling Serb Civilians.
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
By Goran Jungvirth in The Hague
25 April 2008
A former senior United Nations official told the trial of three Croatian generals this week that their forces systematically shelled residential areas rather than military bases during a 1995 operation.
Gen. Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac are indicted at the Hague tribunal for war crimes against Serbs committed by troops under their command during and after Operation Storm – an offensive aimed at retaking territory held by Serb rebels since 1991.
General Andrew Leslie said artillery shelling on Knin in the southeast Krajina region started at 5.02 am on August 4, 1995, and continued non-stop for two hours, hitting mostly civilian targets. There were only three military targets in Knin, he said. Sporadic shelling continued throughout the day.
“From 7am onwards, it was easier to determine that most of the shells were dropped on the area of houses in the centre of town, but that doesn’t mean that the smaller groups of buildings in the suburbs were excluded from shelling,” Leslie told the court.
Leslie, currently Canada’s land forces commander and a former NATO commander in Afghanistan, was the head of UN headquarters in Sector South in Knin at the time. He is one of the highest ranking officers to testify in the trial.
According to the indictment, the Croatian army precipitated a mass exodus of Serbs from the region. The generals are accused of taking part in a joint criminal enterprise with the goal of cleansing the Serb population from Croatia. The indictment says that at least 30 people were killed in Knin, and at least 150 in the whole of Krajina region from August to November 1995.
This week, Leslie said he estimated around 3,000 shells were fired at Knin for a day and a half before Croat forces entered the town at around noon on August 5.
On that day, the witness was involved in the evacuation of patients from the town’s hospital.
As he drove there, he saw corpses by the road and found dozens in the hospital. He saw “no less than 30 and no more than 50-60 dead bodies” in Knin at the time of shelling.
However, he added that the Croatian forces made “great efforts not to hit the hospital” which suffered no serious damage during the attack.
Leslie dismissed the possibility put forward by the defence that Serb forces – angry that the Croatian army was about to enter Knin – carried out some of the shelling.
During cross-examination, Gotovina’s defence lawyer Gregory Kehoe showed Leslie reports by UN and United States military observers that said the Croatian army targeted military points, with damage to civilian buildings only occurring where they were close to military targets.
Leslie simply replied that the UN Military Observer, UNMO, data had “created controversy” when it was released.
The defence also sought to counter an earlier assertion by Leslie that in the first two days of Operation Storm, there were no active Serb forces or positions in the area. Kehoe presented UN reports about a Serb military presence, as well as some of Leslie’s own statements, which said that Knin region was occupied by soldiers and artillery at the time.
The defence played a statement Leslie gave to the BBC on the evening of August 4, in which he said the Croatians were not near Knin, and that there were “a lot of Serbs in Knin and its surroundings”.
Asked who he was referring to, Leslie said, “Serbs means Serbs…I’m not making a distinction between soldiers or civilians…not in the context of that statement.”
The defence then showed the witness a statement he made to Canada’s Toronto Star newspaper, in which he said he personally saw a Serb tank returning fire in front of a UN base in the area.
Kehoe also presented various reports by UN military observers from August 5, about the movements of Serb artillery towards Knin, as well as their distribution across positions around nearby Strmice from where they opened fire on the town that night.
Leslie acknowledged that he knew about this. He said that the day before the attack, some 15 to 20 kilometres from Knin, he saw a much more sophisticated and professional Serb artillery unit than he had seen before in the region.
The trial continues next week.
By Goran Jungvirth in The Hague
25 April 2008
A former senior United Nations official told the trial of three Croatian generals this week that their forces systematically shelled residential areas rather than military bases during a 1995 operation.
Gen. Ante Gotovina, Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac are indicted at the Hague tribunal for war crimes against Serbs committed by troops under their command during and after Operation Storm – an offensive aimed at retaking territory held by Serb rebels since 1991.
General Andrew Leslie said artillery shelling on Knin in the southeast Krajina region started at 5.02 am on August 4, 1995, and continued non-stop for two hours, hitting mostly civilian targets. There were only three military targets in Knin, he said. Sporadic shelling continued throughout the day.
“From 7am onwards, it was easier to determine that most of the shells were dropped on the area of houses in the centre of town, but that doesn’t mean that the smaller groups of buildings in the suburbs were excluded from shelling,” Leslie told the court.
Leslie, currently Canada’s land forces commander and a former NATO commander in Afghanistan, was the head of UN headquarters in Sector South in Knin at the time. He is one of the highest ranking officers to testify in the trial.
According to the indictment, the Croatian army precipitated a mass exodus of Serbs from the region. The generals are accused of taking part in a joint criminal enterprise with the goal of cleansing the Serb population from Croatia. The indictment says that at least 30 people were killed in Knin, and at least 150 in the whole of Krajina region from August to November 1995.
This week, Leslie said he estimated around 3,000 shells were fired at Knin for a day and a half before Croat forces entered the town at around noon on August 5.
On that day, the witness was involved in the evacuation of patients from the town’s hospital.
As he drove there, he saw corpses by the road and found dozens in the hospital. He saw “no less than 30 and no more than 50-60 dead bodies” in Knin at the time of shelling.
However, he added that the Croatian forces made “great efforts not to hit the hospital” which suffered no serious damage during the attack.
Leslie dismissed the possibility put forward by the defence that Serb forces – angry that the Croatian army was about to enter Knin – carried out some of the shelling.
During cross-examination, Gotovina’s defence lawyer Gregory Kehoe showed Leslie reports by UN and United States military observers that said the Croatian army targeted military points, with damage to civilian buildings only occurring where they were close to military targets.
Leslie simply replied that the UN Military Observer, UNMO, data had “created controversy” when it was released.
The defence also sought to counter an earlier assertion by Leslie that in the first two days of Operation Storm, there were no active Serb forces or positions in the area. Kehoe presented UN reports about a Serb military presence, as well as some of Leslie’s own statements, which said that Knin region was occupied by soldiers and artillery at the time.
The defence played a statement Leslie gave to the BBC on the evening of August 4, in which he said the Croatians were not near Knin, and that there were “a lot of Serbs in Knin and its surroundings”.
Asked who he was referring to, Leslie said, “Serbs means Serbs…I’m not making a distinction between soldiers or civilians…not in the context of that statement.”
The defence then showed the witness a statement he made to Canada’s Toronto Star newspaper, in which he said he personally saw a Serb tank returning fire in front of a UN base in the area.
Kehoe also presented various reports by UN military observers from August 5, about the movements of Serb artillery towards Knin, as well as their distribution across positions around nearby Strmice from where they opened fire on the town that night.
Leslie acknowledged that he knew about this. He said that the day before the attack, some 15 to 20 kilometres from Knin, he saw a much more sophisticated and professional Serb artillery unit than he had seen before in the region.
The trial continues next week.
EX-RTLM FOUNDER NAHIMANA REQUESTS APPEALS CHAMBER TO CORRECT ITS ERROR.
Hirondelle News Agency
25 April 2008
The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is currently examining a request for the re-examination of the final judgment that it rendered in November 2007 in the "media" case.
The appellant, Ferdinand Nahimana, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for being found guilt, as a senior official, of directly and publicly inciting genocide and for persecutions as crimes against humanity by means of broadcasts on RTLM radio.
The request for re-examination of Ferdinand Nahimana is not a request for revision as envisaged by Article 25 of the Statute which allows a Chamber of the tribunal, "Where a new fact has been discovered which was not known at the time of the proceedings before the Trial Chamber or the Appeals Chamber and which could have been a decisive factor in reaching the decision", to revise the sentence which it rendered.
In fact, he considers that the Appeals Chamber committed an error of fact by affirming that he had not expressed an objection against the admission, into evidence, of the testimony of Ms Alison Des Forges, an expert witness. He requests that the Appeals Chamber correct its error.
Ms Alison Des Forges, a historian and senior consultant for the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW), was called to testify in first instance as an expert witness for the prosecution. Something that she has done many times at the ICTR. But this testimony raised various types of problems, Jean-Marie Biju-Duval, lawyer for Ferdinand Nahimana, told Hirondelle Agency.
First of all, it was based on second-degree hearsay. Indeed, the expert stated the remarks of a French diplomat, Jean-Christopher Belliard, who had told her that he had heard a telephone conversation between his superior, the Ambassador of France Yannick Gerard and Nahimana.
The second problem was, as reminded by the Appeals Chamber itself in its ruling against the appellant, that an expert witness as Ms Des Forges "assists the Trial Chamber in the appreciation of evidence before the court and not testify upon the facts in issue as would an ordinary witness". In spite of that, without the French diplomat being heard, the First Instance Chamber and the Appeals Chamber accepted this testimony as evidence in the case against Nahimana.
The appeal judges explained in their ruling that it is because the defence did not express an objection that they decided to do so. They had considered that the defence had "renounced its right to make an objection as to the admissibility of this aspect of her evidence".
It is exactly what Mr Biju-Duval was disputing in the motion filed on behalf of his client. He wants to show, by basing himself on passages from transcripts of the first instance trial, on a motion from 10 May 2002, and on the appeal brief, that the defence "objected vociferously and on several occasions" against the admission of these statements reads the motion.
The testimony of Ms Des Forges was more than determining in the establishment of the responsibility for Nahimana, it is the "cornerstone" of the judgment of Nahimana, according to his lawyer. "If the Appeal Chamber thoroughly examines these elements it will note that they do not have any value, and if they were to be rejected then the consequence will be an acquittal", he said.
There are no specific legal bases in support of the request formulated by Ferdinand Nahimana. "But the possibility of re-examining a final judgment independently of the power of revision exists that has already been ruled", explains Biju-Duval.
Some motions for re-examination of a final judgment have already been filed at the two ad hoc tribunals, forging, little by little, the jurisprudence. It is, today, clear and calls for the "inherent jurisdiction [of the international tribunal] to reconsider any decision including a judgment where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent an injustice".
Appeals Judge Mohamed Shahabudeen said during various dissenting opinions, that there were, indeed, exceptional cases, as the risk of a miscarriage of justice, which, even if they do not meet the criteria of Article 25 of the Statute, can be revised. "That power can only be the inherent jurisdiction of the Appeals Chamber", (decision of 06 March 2006 in the case of Eliezer Nyitegeka, former Minister for Information).
This concept of inherent jurisdiction was very broad, it was not mentioned as such in the Statute but arises, according to the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals, from the exercise of their jurisdiction. It is the jurisdiction "to take care that the exercise of the jurisdiction which is expressly conferred to it by the Statute is not hindered and so that it can fulfill its fundamental legal functions" (Mucic, ruling relating to the sentence, ICTY, 4 August 2003).
In the Mucic ruling at the ICTY, the Appeals Chamber allows the re-examination of a past ruling sullied with "a glaring error of reasoning" or if it "was rendered per incuriam" (i.e., without reference to a legal basis or a relevant past judgment). It also allows it if the ruling "led to an injustice".
The Appeals Chamber explained that it is a question of mitigating the inexistence of recourse for appeal to correct an injustice arising from a ruling.
No motion of this kind has yet been successful, either at the ICTR or at the ICTY. But Mr. Biju-Duval was optimistic: "I trust the judges as they have already showed their perspicacity and their clearness by removing the majority of the counts of the indictment against Nahimana", he said.
25 April 2008
The Appeals Chamber of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is currently examining a request for the re-examination of the final judgment that it rendered in November 2007 in the "media" case.
The appellant, Ferdinand Nahimana, was sentenced to 30 years in prison for being found guilt, as a senior official, of directly and publicly inciting genocide and for persecutions as crimes against humanity by means of broadcasts on RTLM radio.
The request for re-examination of Ferdinand Nahimana is not a request for revision as envisaged by Article 25 of the Statute which allows a Chamber of the tribunal, "Where a new fact has been discovered which was not known at the time of the proceedings before the Trial Chamber or the Appeals Chamber and which could have been a decisive factor in reaching the decision", to revise the sentence which it rendered.
In fact, he considers that the Appeals Chamber committed an error of fact by affirming that he had not expressed an objection against the admission, into evidence, of the testimony of Ms Alison Des Forges, an expert witness. He requests that the Appeals Chamber correct its error.
Ms Alison Des Forges, a historian and senior consultant for the NGO Human Rights Watch (HRW), was called to testify in first instance as an expert witness for the prosecution. Something that she has done many times at the ICTR. But this testimony raised various types of problems, Jean-Marie Biju-Duval, lawyer for Ferdinand Nahimana, told Hirondelle Agency.
First of all, it was based on second-degree hearsay. Indeed, the expert stated the remarks of a French diplomat, Jean-Christopher Belliard, who had told her that he had heard a telephone conversation between his superior, the Ambassador of France Yannick Gerard and Nahimana.
The second problem was, as reminded by the Appeals Chamber itself in its ruling against the appellant, that an expert witness as Ms Des Forges "assists the Trial Chamber in the appreciation of evidence before the court and not testify upon the facts in issue as would an ordinary witness". In spite of that, without the French diplomat being heard, the First Instance Chamber and the Appeals Chamber accepted this testimony as evidence in the case against Nahimana.
The appeal judges explained in their ruling that it is because the defence did not express an objection that they decided to do so. They had considered that the defence had "renounced its right to make an objection as to the admissibility of this aspect of her evidence".
It is exactly what Mr Biju-Duval was disputing in the motion filed on behalf of his client. He wants to show, by basing himself on passages from transcripts of the first instance trial, on a motion from 10 May 2002, and on the appeal brief, that the defence "objected vociferously and on several occasions" against the admission of these statements reads the motion.
The testimony of Ms Des Forges was more than determining in the establishment of the responsibility for Nahimana, it is the "cornerstone" of the judgment of Nahimana, according to his lawyer. "If the Appeal Chamber thoroughly examines these elements it will note that they do not have any value, and if they were to be rejected then the consequence will be an acquittal", he said.
There are no specific legal bases in support of the request formulated by Ferdinand Nahimana. "But the possibility of re-examining a final judgment independently of the power of revision exists that has already been ruled", explains Biju-Duval.
Some motions for re-examination of a final judgment have already been filed at the two ad hoc tribunals, forging, little by little, the jurisprudence. It is, today, clear and calls for the "inherent jurisdiction [of the international tribunal] to reconsider any decision including a judgment where it is necessary to do so in order to prevent an injustice".
Appeals Judge Mohamed Shahabudeen said during various dissenting opinions, that there were, indeed, exceptional cases, as the risk of a miscarriage of justice, which, even if they do not meet the criteria of Article 25 of the Statute, can be revised. "That power can only be the inherent jurisdiction of the Appeals Chamber", (decision of 06 March 2006 in the case of Eliezer Nyitegeka, former Minister for Information).
This concept of inherent jurisdiction was very broad, it was not mentioned as such in the Statute but arises, according to the jurisprudence of the ad hoc tribunals, from the exercise of their jurisdiction. It is the jurisdiction "to take care that the exercise of the jurisdiction which is expressly conferred to it by the Statute is not hindered and so that it can fulfill its fundamental legal functions" (Mucic, ruling relating to the sentence, ICTY, 4 August 2003).
In the Mucic ruling at the ICTY, the Appeals Chamber allows the re-examination of a past ruling sullied with "a glaring error of reasoning" or if it "was rendered per incuriam" (i.e., without reference to a legal basis or a relevant past judgment). It also allows it if the ruling "led to an injustice".
The Appeals Chamber explained that it is a question of mitigating the inexistence of recourse for appeal to correct an injustice arising from a ruling.
No motion of this kind has yet been successful, either at the ICTR or at the ICTY. But Mr. Biju-Duval was optimistic: "I trust the judges as they have already showed their perspicacity and their clearness by removing the majority of the counts of the indictment against Nahimana", he said.
St. Paul Lawyer's Next Case: Rwandan Genocide.
By KATHRYN NELSON
Star Tribune
April 23, 2008
Few dare to dispute the 1994 Rwandan genocide that left 800,000 people dead and hundreds of thousands more injured. But a St. Paul lawyer is one of those few.
Peter Erlinder, a professor at the William Mitchell College of Law, is gaining international notoriety for his view that what happened in Rwanda wasn't genocide at all. And his work defending one of the most infamous genocide suspects in the world has earned him a personal condemnation by the president of Rwanda.
This is far from Erlinder's first controversial case. He has defined much of his career by defending those most shunned by society, from suspected terrorists and sex offenders to convicted murders.
"The fact of the matter is, the quality of any civilization is determined by how they treat those who are most reviled," he said. "If the [justice] system doesn't have integrity then our society doesn't have integrity."
Erlinder, 60, became interested in the United Nations Tribunals after Carla Del Ponte, the U.N.'s chief prosecutor for Rwanda, was removed in 2003 after calling for investigations of Rwanda's president.
He submitted his name as a potential defense lawyer, believing that he would be assigned as a co-counsel. Instead, he was given the case of Aloys Ntabakuze, a former Hutu commander of the Rwandan army charged with a slew of crimes including genocide.
Erlinder says Ntabakuze is "an inspirational, multi-lingual, decent and humane man." The president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, says Erlinder is a "genocidaire"-- a genocide criminal -- for defending Ntabakuze.
'Many people were killed'
As part of his defense, Erlinder has turned the traditional account of the Rwandan genocide on its head, claiming that the Tutsis were not the primary victims but the instigators and that the massacres were actually part of an ongoing civil war.
And what of the actions of the Hutu government, which is traditionally blamed for the murders of 800,000 Tutsis?
"Certainly many people were killed," Erlinder said. But genocide? "It depends on who you call the victims."
His conclusions have enraged Tutsi survivors, including Alice Musabende, who now lives in Canada and recently spoke in the Twin Cities.
"I don't care what they say in the U.S. My people didn't commit suicide, they were killed," she said. "They're trying to sell it to Americans because no one understands what really happened."
Musabende was 14 in April 1994. On the eve of the killings she went to visit her aunt and got so engrossed in a television show that she lost track of time and wound up spending the night rather than trekking home in the dark.
In the night, a boom rang out. Someone had shot down the president's plane, killing everyone on board. Immediately, people flooded the streets, machetes in hand.
Within days, extremists had killed about 20 members of her family, including her mother, father, grandparents, sister and two brothers. After 100 days in hiding, she emerged in July 1994 with no family and no home.
Fourteen years later, Musabende does not pretend to have forgiven those who killed her favorite brother -- or those who trivialize her suffering.
"They wanted us to disappear from the surface of the Earth," she said. Those who claim otherwise are trying to steal the significance from the primary victims, she said.
"This genocide is mine. It's mine because it's what I am now. I can't sleep. I can't eat. I can't be a normal 20-year-old girl," Musabende said.
Erlinder argues that intelligence documents describe the deaths of far more Hutus than Tutsis. "Records show that twice as many Hutus were victims as Tutsis," he said. "Hutus are survivors, too."
A movement to reexamine
Erlinder is part of a growing movement to reexamine the genocide.
Despite the backlash against Del Ponte, he said he is determined to make sure that the justice system is fair and that all claims of violence are investigated. So far, allegations of Tutsi-led genocide haven't been, he said.
"It's always been the guy that won the war who can tell the story," he said. "This is the only tribunal in history that was set up to prosecute both sides, but hasn't."
Erlinder, who possesses both good humor and a seemingly infinite knowledge of the Rwandan massacres, draws many of his conclusions from intelligence documents he spent two years working to obtain. One recounts a May massacre of 2,000 to 3,000 Hutus, initiated by the Tutsi rebel army:
"The [Tutsi Rebel Army] comes at 05h00 waiting for villagers to open their doors. The villagers are caught and taken away to the river by trucks. No one has returned. ... Each day there are more and more bodies in the river and most of them without their heads."
To Erlinder, these documents are undeniable proof of the guilt of current Tutsi leaders and the innocence of his client.
His claims found support earlier this year when a Spanish judge issued warrants for 40 members of the current Rwandan government, accusing them of war crimes, terrorism and genocide against innocent Hutu civilians during the early 1990s.
The Rwandan president said the judge could "go to hell."
Wounds haven't healed yet
Tension still runs high in Rwanda, where genocide accomplices and survivors live side by side in tenuous harmony.
Earlier this month during the 14th commemoration of the genocide, a group of unidentified men threw a grenade inside a memorial, killing a police officer. Later, a speeding car drove into a remembrance ceremony, killing one participant.
"I am not sure if this means that something big is about to happen again, but I was shocked that there is someone out there who can't let our people rest in peace," Musabende said.
She said she will continue to speak about Rwanda until she can't anymore.
"I don't wish [genocide] to happen to anyone, not even the people I hate," she said.
"Because our genocide didn't only take the lives of our mothers and fathers, but took our own souls. It took the innocent child in me, took my smile away, broke my dreams. Now, I have to rebuild everything and tell myself, day after day, that I'm worth living. That's not a life, trust me."
Erlinder plans to return to Tanzania in the next few months to await the verdict for his client. The majority of his work with the tribunal, he said, is pro bono.
All documents concerning Ntabakuze's case will be posted on a searchable database in the future so people can reach their own conclusions about the genocide. Erlinder also plans to write a book.
"The evidence is evidence," he said. "One can understand how individuals who have suffered would naturally carry those wounds with them.
"That doesn't mean that they would understand the whole situation."
Kathryn Nelson is a University of Minnesota journalism student on assignment for the Star Tribune.
Star Tribune
April 23, 2008
Few dare to dispute the 1994 Rwandan genocide that left 800,000 people dead and hundreds of thousands more injured. But a St. Paul lawyer is one of those few.
Peter Erlinder, a professor at the William Mitchell College of Law, is gaining international notoriety for his view that what happened in Rwanda wasn't genocide at all. And his work defending one of the most infamous genocide suspects in the world has earned him a personal condemnation by the president of Rwanda.
This is far from Erlinder's first controversial case. He has defined much of his career by defending those most shunned by society, from suspected terrorists and sex offenders to convicted murders.
"The fact of the matter is, the quality of any civilization is determined by how they treat those who are most reviled," he said. "If the [justice] system doesn't have integrity then our society doesn't have integrity."
Erlinder, 60, became interested in the United Nations Tribunals after Carla Del Ponte, the U.N.'s chief prosecutor for Rwanda, was removed in 2003 after calling for investigations of Rwanda's president.
He submitted his name as a potential defense lawyer, believing that he would be assigned as a co-counsel. Instead, he was given the case of Aloys Ntabakuze, a former Hutu commander of the Rwandan army charged with a slew of crimes including genocide.
Erlinder says Ntabakuze is "an inspirational, multi-lingual, decent and humane man." The president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, says Erlinder is a "genocidaire"-- a genocide criminal -- for defending Ntabakuze.
'Many people were killed'
As part of his defense, Erlinder has turned the traditional account of the Rwandan genocide on its head, claiming that the Tutsis were not the primary victims but the instigators and that the massacres were actually part of an ongoing civil war.
And what of the actions of the Hutu government, which is traditionally blamed for the murders of 800,000 Tutsis?
"Certainly many people were killed," Erlinder said. But genocide? "It depends on who you call the victims."
His conclusions have enraged Tutsi survivors, including Alice Musabende, who now lives in Canada and recently spoke in the Twin Cities.
"I don't care what they say in the U.S. My people didn't commit suicide, they were killed," she said. "They're trying to sell it to Americans because no one understands what really happened."
Musabende was 14 in April 1994. On the eve of the killings she went to visit her aunt and got so engrossed in a television show that she lost track of time and wound up spending the night rather than trekking home in the dark.
In the night, a boom rang out. Someone had shot down the president's plane, killing everyone on board. Immediately, people flooded the streets, machetes in hand.
Within days, extremists had killed about 20 members of her family, including her mother, father, grandparents, sister and two brothers. After 100 days in hiding, she emerged in July 1994 with no family and no home.
Fourteen years later, Musabende does not pretend to have forgiven those who killed her favorite brother -- or those who trivialize her suffering.
"They wanted us to disappear from the surface of the Earth," she said. Those who claim otherwise are trying to steal the significance from the primary victims, she said.
"This genocide is mine. It's mine because it's what I am now. I can't sleep. I can't eat. I can't be a normal 20-year-old girl," Musabende said.
Erlinder argues that intelligence documents describe the deaths of far more Hutus than Tutsis. "Records show that twice as many Hutus were victims as Tutsis," he said. "Hutus are survivors, too."
A movement to reexamine
Erlinder is part of a growing movement to reexamine the genocide.
Despite the backlash against Del Ponte, he said he is determined to make sure that the justice system is fair and that all claims of violence are investigated. So far, allegations of Tutsi-led genocide haven't been, he said.
"It's always been the guy that won the war who can tell the story," he said. "This is the only tribunal in history that was set up to prosecute both sides, but hasn't."
Erlinder, who possesses both good humor and a seemingly infinite knowledge of the Rwandan massacres, draws many of his conclusions from intelligence documents he spent two years working to obtain. One recounts a May massacre of 2,000 to 3,000 Hutus, initiated by the Tutsi rebel army:
"The [Tutsi Rebel Army] comes at 05h00 waiting for villagers to open their doors. The villagers are caught and taken away to the river by trucks. No one has returned. ... Each day there are more and more bodies in the river and most of them without their heads."
To Erlinder, these documents are undeniable proof of the guilt of current Tutsi leaders and the innocence of his client.
His claims found support earlier this year when a Spanish judge issued warrants for 40 members of the current Rwandan government, accusing them of war crimes, terrorism and genocide against innocent Hutu civilians during the early 1990s.
The Rwandan president said the judge could "go to hell."
Wounds haven't healed yet
Tension still runs high in Rwanda, where genocide accomplices and survivors live side by side in tenuous harmony.
Earlier this month during the 14th commemoration of the genocide, a group of unidentified men threw a grenade inside a memorial, killing a police officer. Later, a speeding car drove into a remembrance ceremony, killing one participant.
"I am not sure if this means that something big is about to happen again, but I was shocked that there is someone out there who can't let our people rest in peace," Musabende said.
She said she will continue to speak about Rwanda until she can't anymore.
"I don't wish [genocide] to happen to anyone, not even the people I hate," she said.
"Because our genocide didn't only take the lives of our mothers and fathers, but took our own souls. It took the innocent child in me, took my smile away, broke my dreams. Now, I have to rebuild everything and tell myself, day after day, that I'm worth living. That's not a life, trust me."
Erlinder plans to return to Tanzania in the next few months to await the verdict for his client. The majority of his work with the tribunal, he said, is pro bono.
All documents concerning Ntabakuze's case will be posted on a searchable database in the future so people can reach their own conclusions about the genocide. Erlinder also plans to write a book.
"The evidence is evidence," he said. "One can understand how individuals who have suffered would naturally carry those wounds with them.
"That doesn't mean that they would understand the whole situation."
Kathryn Nelson is a University of Minnesota journalism student on assignment for the Star Tribune.
25 April, 2008
Bern to impose sanctions on Chad.
SwissInfo
25 April 2008
Switzerland says it is taking sanctions against Chad after the central African country armed a Swiss-made aircraft illegally and used it in a conflict.
In a government statement on Friday no details of the sanctions were given. However, the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (Seco) said they included visa restrictions to Switzerland on Chadian government officials.
The government said it did not want the sanctions to affect the civilian population and as a result they were targeted at "representatives of the state".
Swiss development aid to Chad, valued at about SFr14 million ($13.46 million) last year, will not be affected.
"Many of the sanction details have yet to be worked out," Erwin Bollinger, head of Seco's exports policy, told swissinfo.
He added that the Pilatus company of central Switzerland, which made the PC-9 training aircraft used in attacks on Sudan's Darfur region, would no longer supply Chad.
The statement said the government would ask parliament for a modification to regulations on export controls to reduce the risk of such abuse in the future.
Switzerland and Chad have little in the way of bilateral trade.
It added that Seco investigations into the aircraft deal with Chad had found that Pilatus had carried out its part of the contract "correctly".
25 April 2008
Switzerland says it is taking sanctions against Chad after the central African country armed a Swiss-made aircraft illegally and used it in a conflict.
In a government statement on Friday no details of the sanctions were given. However, the State Secretariat for Economic Affairs (Seco) said they included visa restrictions to Switzerland on Chadian government officials.
The government said it did not want the sanctions to affect the civilian population and as a result they were targeted at "representatives of the state".
Swiss development aid to Chad, valued at about SFr14 million ($13.46 million) last year, will not be affected.
"Many of the sanction details have yet to be worked out," Erwin Bollinger, head of Seco's exports policy, told swissinfo.
He added that the Pilatus company of central Switzerland, which made the PC-9 training aircraft used in attacks on Sudan's Darfur region, would no longer supply Chad.
The statement said the government would ask parliament for a modification to regulations on export controls to reduce the risk of such abuse in the future.
Switzerland and Chad have little in the way of bilateral trade.
It added that Seco investigations into the aircraft deal with Chad had found that Pilatus had carried out its part of the contract "correctly".
Ex-Businessman Claims Prosecutor Told Him to Plead Guilty.
Hirondelle News Agency
24 April 2008
Genocide accused Yussuf Munyakazi Thursday claimed that the ICTR Prosecutor tried to induce him to make a confession of guilty plea to get his sentence reduced.
Mr Munyakazi who is accused of genocide and crimes against humanity during 1994 massacres, made the allegation during hearing of a prosecutor's motion to have the former Rwandan businessman get transferred to Kigali for a trial. The 73-year-old accused has pleaded not guilty.
"I can't testify wrongly," he told the three-bench Chamber presided by Judge Ines Weinberg de Roca (Argentina) and assisted by Lee Muthoga (Kenya) and Robert Fremr (Czech), hearing first such motion before the court, which was established in November 1994 to try key suspects of the slaughter, which according to the United Nations, claimed lives of about 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus.
Mr Munyakazi alleged that he was kept for nine months in a solidarity confinement.
"I was not part of the Hutu-power and I am innocent," he stressed, adding that since he fled Rwanda in 1996 his properties have been confisgated and his family was intimidated by authorities. "At my house nothing is left. Even the house is taken by Tutsis, not from Bugarama [his native home] but Tutsis from elsewhere."
His 12 children, he says, were killed by Tutsi in 1997.
Earlier, the landmark hearing met heated arguments from both the Prosecutor and the defence.
The debate was interjected by a "Friends of the Court" (Amicus Curie)--Human Rights Watch, Bar of Kigali, Government of Rwanda and the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association (ICDAA).
The ICTR Prosecutor, Hassan Jallow, claimed that Rwandan legal framework grants fair trial, adding that this was demonstrated by the latest decision of the French Chamberry Court of Appeal on 2 April which approved extradition of former Rwandan businessman Claver Kamanya to Kigali.
The prosecution's motion requesting his transfer was filed on 7 September 2007, within the framework of the ICTR completion strategy, which wants to transfer some cases to national jurisdictions in order to finish by the end of the year all first instance trials as directed by the Security Council.
Professor Jwani Mwakyusa, lead defence counsel, strongly opposed the Prosecutor's move, saying Rwandan judicial lacked competence and was partial. "It is absurd to transfer a case to a system which should be answering the same charges," he said, referring to the alleged atrocities committed by the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) during the 1994 genocide and the indictments issued by French and, more recently, by Spanish judges against RPA soldiers.
The Human Rights Watch representative, Aisling Reidy, said that they have evidence of intimidation and harassment of legal officers and witnesses in Rwanda, adding that the defence had difficulties in securing witnesses.
Rwandan Prosecutor General, Martin Ngoga, said that his country launched judicial reforms since 2003 without any external pressure. "What is important is to consider the policy [in place]...we brought the reforms so that we don't violate them," he said.
The chamber completed the hearing Thursday afternoon and is yet to announce the date for a ruling.
Since June 2007, ICTR Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow has filed motions to transfer to Kigali five accused persons, including Munyakazi.
The others accused targeted by transfer requests to Kigali are: former Commander of Ngoma Camp Lieutenant Ildephonse Hategekimana, businessman Gaspard Kanyarukiga, former Mayor Jean Baptist Gatete and former Inspector of Judicial Police, Fulgence Kaysihema. The latter is still at large.
24 April 2008
Genocide accused Yussuf Munyakazi Thursday claimed that the ICTR Prosecutor tried to induce him to make a confession of guilty plea to get his sentence reduced.
Mr Munyakazi who is accused of genocide and crimes against humanity during 1994 massacres, made the allegation during hearing of a prosecutor's motion to have the former Rwandan businessman get transferred to Kigali for a trial. The 73-year-old accused has pleaded not guilty.
"I can't testify wrongly," he told the three-bench Chamber presided by Judge Ines Weinberg de Roca (Argentina) and assisted by Lee Muthoga (Kenya) and Robert Fremr (Czech), hearing first such motion before the court, which was established in November 1994 to try key suspects of the slaughter, which according to the United Nations, claimed lives of about 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus.
Mr Munyakazi alleged that he was kept for nine months in a solidarity confinement.
"I was not part of the Hutu-power and I am innocent," he stressed, adding that since he fled Rwanda in 1996 his properties have been confisgated and his family was intimidated by authorities. "At my house nothing is left. Even the house is taken by Tutsis, not from Bugarama [his native home] but Tutsis from elsewhere."
His 12 children, he says, were killed by Tutsi in 1997.
Earlier, the landmark hearing met heated arguments from both the Prosecutor and the defence.
The debate was interjected by a "Friends of the Court" (Amicus Curie)--Human Rights Watch, Bar of Kigali, Government of Rwanda and the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association (ICDAA).
The ICTR Prosecutor, Hassan Jallow, claimed that Rwandan legal framework grants fair trial, adding that this was demonstrated by the latest decision of the French Chamberry Court of Appeal on 2 April which approved extradition of former Rwandan businessman Claver Kamanya to Kigali.
The prosecution's motion requesting his transfer was filed on 7 September 2007, within the framework of the ICTR completion strategy, which wants to transfer some cases to national jurisdictions in order to finish by the end of the year all first instance trials as directed by the Security Council.
Professor Jwani Mwakyusa, lead defence counsel, strongly opposed the Prosecutor's move, saying Rwandan judicial lacked competence and was partial. "It is absurd to transfer a case to a system which should be answering the same charges," he said, referring to the alleged atrocities committed by the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF) during the 1994 genocide and the indictments issued by French and, more recently, by Spanish judges against RPA soldiers.
The Human Rights Watch representative, Aisling Reidy, said that they have evidence of intimidation and harassment of legal officers and witnesses in Rwanda, adding that the defence had difficulties in securing witnesses.
Rwandan Prosecutor General, Martin Ngoga, said that his country launched judicial reforms since 2003 without any external pressure. "What is important is to consider the policy [in place]...we brought the reforms so that we don't violate them," he said.
The chamber completed the hearing Thursday afternoon and is yet to announce the date for a ruling.
Since June 2007, ICTR Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow has filed motions to transfer to Kigali five accused persons, including Munyakazi.
The others accused targeted by transfer requests to Kigali are: former Commander of Ngoma Camp Lieutenant Ildephonse Hategekimana, businessman Gaspard Kanyarukiga, former Mayor Jean Baptist Gatete and former Inspector of Judicial Police, Fulgence Kaysihema. The latter is still at large.
24 April, 2008
BUJUMBURA: NEW FIGHTING NORTH OF CAPITAL, CIVILIAN CASUALTIES?
MISNA
24 April 2008
Renewed fighting was reported last night between the army and rebels of the National Liberation Forces (FNL) in the area of Rukoko, around 20km north of the capital Bujumbura. The army spokesman Adolphe Manirakiza referred that three rebels were killed and a fourth was captured, while there were no losses in the government troops. Sources of the local administration of the Gihanga commune also said that two farmers were killed in the crossfire between the sides. Though for the moment there is no confirmation from independent sources, but in the past days human rights groups denounced victims among the civil population in the offensive launched on April 17 by the FNL against various areas of the capital, with an official toll of 36dead.
The Burundian government condemned a mortar attack that on Tuesday night hit a wing of the Apostolic Nunciature building, seat of the diplomatic mission of the Holy See in Bujumbura, claiming that the rebel offensive was repelled: “Many attacks against the city and provinces were neutralised. Many FNL posts were totally destroyed”, said Communications minister Hafsa Mossi, adding, “despite this attack, the government remains open to dialogue with the FNL”, the last active rebel group in the nation.
24 April 2008
Renewed fighting was reported last night between the army and rebels of the National Liberation Forces (FNL) in the area of Rukoko, around 20km north of the capital Bujumbura. The army spokesman Adolphe Manirakiza referred that three rebels were killed and a fourth was captured, while there were no losses in the government troops. Sources of the local administration of the Gihanga commune also said that two farmers were killed in the crossfire between the sides. Though for the moment there is no confirmation from independent sources, but in the past days human rights groups denounced victims among the civil population in the offensive launched on April 17 by the FNL against various areas of the capital, with an official toll of 36dead.
The Burundian government condemned a mortar attack that on Tuesday night hit a wing of the Apostolic Nunciature building, seat of the diplomatic mission of the Holy See in Bujumbura, claiming that the rebel offensive was repelled: “Many attacks against the city and provinces were neutralised. Many FNL posts were totally destroyed”, said Communications minister Hafsa Mossi, adding, “despite this attack, the government remains open to dialogue with the FNL”, the last active rebel group in the nation.
ODINGA AND KIBAKI BEGIN VISIT TO DISPLACED IN RIFT VALLEY.
MISNA
24 April 2008
President Emilio Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga begin their visit today to the Rift Valley, the worst-hit region by the post-election violence that based on official estimates left around a thousand dead and displaced over 300,000. The three-day visit was preceded by a heated debate and opposition of some of the region’s MPs over the return of internally displaced to their areas of origin: while some local officials believe that the displaced, still sheltered in schools, stadiums and police stations, should be immediately returned to their homes, others feel that the operation should be conducted over a longer period to avoid heightening tension between the different ethnic groups. “Let me clarify that the President is not going to resettle people. You cannot do that in a day. We are going to dialogue and find best options to resolve the crisis”, said Raila in an attempt to cool the debate, while the Agriculture minister and opposition member, William Ruto, assured that the only difference that emerged was on the “approach and not the principle”. The President and Prime Minister will visit the towns of Eldoret, Trans Nzoia, Kipkelion, Sotik, Molo and Naivasha, some of the towns theatre to the most violent post-election unrest.
The humanitarian condition of some 140,000 displaced around the country is among the first challenges that need to be faced by the new Kenyan coalition government. A challenge that – considering the ethnic connotation that the clashes assumed between January and February – will be extremely delicate for the equilibrium of the nation.
24 April 2008
President Emilio Mwai Kibaki and Prime Minister Raila Odinga begin their visit today to the Rift Valley, the worst-hit region by the post-election violence that based on official estimates left around a thousand dead and displaced over 300,000. The three-day visit was preceded by a heated debate and opposition of some of the region’s MPs over the return of internally displaced to their areas of origin: while some local officials believe that the displaced, still sheltered in schools, stadiums and police stations, should be immediately returned to their homes, others feel that the operation should be conducted over a longer period to avoid heightening tension between the different ethnic groups. “Let me clarify that the President is not going to resettle people. You cannot do that in a day. We are going to dialogue and find best options to resolve the crisis”, said Raila in an attempt to cool the debate, while the Agriculture minister and opposition member, William Ruto, assured that the only difference that emerged was on the “approach and not the principle”. The President and Prime Minister will visit the towns of Eldoret, Trans Nzoia, Kipkelion, Sotik, Molo and Naivasha, some of the towns theatre to the most violent post-election unrest.
The humanitarian condition of some 140,000 displaced around the country is among the first challenges that need to be faced by the new Kenyan coalition government. A challenge that – considering the ethnic connotation that the clashes assumed between January and February – will be extremely delicate for the equilibrium of the nation.
ETHIOPIAN TROOPS INVOLVED MASSACRE IN MOSQUE.
MISNA
23 April 2008
Eyewitnesses told Amnesty International that no fewer than 21 people, including the imam Sheik Saiid Yahya, some Quran students and some unarmed civilians were killed last Saturday, April 19, inside the 'Al Hidaaya' mosque in northern Mogadishu by Ethiopian troops (who are backing the transition government). After the massacre, during which seven people had their throats cut, 41 children were kidnapped from the attached school, some no older than nine years. Amnesty says they could be released once the Ethiopian armed forces determine that “they are not terrorists”. The “Shabelle.net” website, Amnesty has posted a long appeal for the release of the children. The massacre at the mosque – which appeared to have gone unnoticed until Amnesty made it known through a communiqué – took place just as local insurgents and some Ethiopian and Somali troops were fighting in Mogadishu; according to the human rights NGO “Elman”, the clashes have left 81 killed and 100 wounded, many of these civilians. Amnesty has asked that an independent inquiry commission investigate the matter to determine the identity of those responsible such as to be able to pursue them in court excluding the possibility of capital punishment.
The UN Security Council has been asked to adopt initiatives to end the widespread impunity in Somalia and to investigate the violations of human rights in the conflict. In light of the witness accounts, the position of Amnesty and the Ethiopian statements concerning the fate of the children, the attempts to describe the massacre in terms of an ‘anti-terrorism’ operation appear to be at the very least incomprehensible. The ‘senseless’ violence against innocents that has now regularly hit Mogadishu – which nevertheless had apparently never achieved such degrees of horror and gratuity – had just been denounced yesterday by the UN special representative in Somalia Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah.
23 April 2008
Eyewitnesses told Amnesty International that no fewer than 21 people, including the imam Sheik Saiid Yahya, some Quran students and some unarmed civilians were killed last Saturday, April 19, inside the 'Al Hidaaya' mosque in northern Mogadishu by Ethiopian troops (who are backing the transition government). After the massacre, during which seven people had their throats cut, 41 children were kidnapped from the attached school, some no older than nine years. Amnesty says they could be released once the Ethiopian armed forces determine that “they are not terrorists”. The “Shabelle.net” website, Amnesty has posted a long appeal for the release of the children. The massacre at the mosque – which appeared to have gone unnoticed until Amnesty made it known through a communiqué – took place just as local insurgents and some Ethiopian and Somali troops were fighting in Mogadishu; according to the human rights NGO “Elman”, the clashes have left 81 killed and 100 wounded, many of these civilians. Amnesty has asked that an independent inquiry commission investigate the matter to determine the identity of those responsible such as to be able to pursue them in court excluding the possibility of capital punishment.
The UN Security Council has been asked to adopt initiatives to end the widespread impunity in Somalia and to investigate the violations of human rights in the conflict. In light of the witness accounts, the position of Amnesty and the Ethiopian statements concerning the fate of the children, the attempts to describe the massacre in terms of an ‘anti-terrorism’ operation appear to be at the very least incomprehensible. The ‘senseless’ violence against innocents that has now regularly hit Mogadishu – which nevertheless had apparently never achieved such degrees of horror and gratuity – had just been denounced yesterday by the UN special representative in Somalia Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah.
MOSQUE MASSACRE: 12 CHILDREN RELEASED, FATE OF OTHERS UNKNOWN.
MISNA
24 April 2008
“At least 12 students seized by Ethiopian troops were released, but there is no news of the other 29, who they are apparently still holding”, said a MISNA source contacted in Mogadishu confirming and providing the latest developments on the abduction on April 19 of 41 students by Ethiopian soldiers. The children, some under 9 years-old, were seized by Ethiopian troops after they stormed the al Hidaya mosque, in northern Mogadishu, killing 21 people including the imam Sheik Saiid Yahya and numerous defenceless people. “They had taken them to their headquarter at KM4 inside Mogadishu, but it remains unclear how many of the students were killed in the massacre in the mosque”, said the source, who requested anonymity for security reasons. Eyewitnesses said that the soldiers killed the imam and some faithful, then threatening others with death if they had ever returned to the mosque or adjoining Islamic school, which they claimed was a training centre for anti-government insurgents. “After killing the faithful and seizing the students, the soldiers sealed the area off for three days. Access was only restored today to begin reconstruction what actually occurred”, said to MISNA Sudan Ali Ahmed, the head of the prominent Mogadishu-based Elman Human Rights Group.
The massacre in the Hidaya mosque, which followed a weekend of violence that left over a hundred dead (four decomposing bodies were just found in the past hours), was denounced yesterday in a statement by Amnesty International that called for the creation of an International commission of inquiry for an investigation into the killings to establish the identities of those responsible to ensure their prosecution in a fair trial, without recourse to the death penalty. According to Amnesty, the victims of the ‘Al Hidaaya’ massacre were all unarmed civilians taking no active part in hostilities. Based on testimonies gathered by the rights group, the Ethiopian soldiers actually executed some of the victims, with seven reported to have died after their throats were slit.
24 April 2008
“At least 12 students seized by Ethiopian troops were released, but there is no news of the other 29, who they are apparently still holding”, said a MISNA source contacted in Mogadishu confirming and providing the latest developments on the abduction on April 19 of 41 students by Ethiopian soldiers. The children, some under 9 years-old, were seized by Ethiopian troops after they stormed the al Hidaya mosque, in northern Mogadishu, killing 21 people including the imam Sheik Saiid Yahya and numerous defenceless people. “They had taken them to their headquarter at KM4 inside Mogadishu, but it remains unclear how many of the students were killed in the massacre in the mosque”, said the source, who requested anonymity for security reasons. Eyewitnesses said that the soldiers killed the imam and some faithful, then threatening others with death if they had ever returned to the mosque or adjoining Islamic school, which they claimed was a training centre for anti-government insurgents. “After killing the faithful and seizing the students, the soldiers sealed the area off for three days. Access was only restored today to begin reconstruction what actually occurred”, said to MISNA Sudan Ali Ahmed, the head of the prominent Mogadishu-based Elman Human Rights Group.
The massacre in the Hidaya mosque, which followed a weekend of violence that left over a hundred dead (four decomposing bodies were just found in the past hours), was denounced yesterday in a statement by Amnesty International that called for the creation of an International commission of inquiry for an investigation into the killings to establish the identities of those responsible to ensure their prosecution in a fair trial, without recourse to the death penalty. According to Amnesty, the victims of the ‘Al Hidaaya’ massacre were all unarmed civilians taking no active part in hostilities. Based on testimonies gathered by the rights group, the Ethiopian soldiers actually executed some of the victims, with seven reported to have died after their throats were slit.
OVER 150 KILLED IN LATEST LTTE-ARMY FIGHTING.
MISNA
24 April 2008
The toll has spiraled to 150 dead in fighting yesterday in the extreme north of Sri Lanka, the fiercest since the escalation a few months ago of the army offensive against rebels of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). According to the Defence ministry, at least 100 rebels, including 15 senior cadres and 43 soldiers, were killed in fierce fighting in the battle fronts at Muhamalai and Kilali, in the Jaffna peninsula. The LTTE also report a high toll, but specifying that the most losses were however suffered by the government troops, with 150 dead and 400 wounded; an LTTE spokesman said that only 25 rebels were killed in battle.
24 April 2008
The toll has spiraled to 150 dead in fighting yesterday in the extreme north of Sri Lanka, the fiercest since the escalation a few months ago of the army offensive against rebels of the LTTE (Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam). According to the Defence ministry, at least 100 rebels, including 15 senior cadres and 43 soldiers, were killed in fierce fighting in the battle fronts at Muhamalai and Kilali, in the Jaffna peninsula. The LTTE also report a high toll, but specifying that the most losses were however suffered by the government troops, with 150 dead and 400 wounded; an LTTE spokesman said that only 25 rebels were killed in battle.
‘PARA-POLITICA’: PRESIDENT URIBE INVESTIGATED FOR INVOLVEMENT IN MASSACRE.
MISNA
24 April 2008
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe yesterday revealed that he is under investigation for alleged involvement in the planning of a massacre of farmers when he was governor of the Antioquia department. In an interview with Caracol Radio, Uribe said that an inmate accused him of meeting in La Caucana with Salvatore Mancuso, head of the ‘Bloque Catatumbo’ paramilitary group, and the army generals Ospina and Rosso, to plan a massacre carried out on 22 October 1997 in ‘El Aro’, in which 15 people were tortured and killed, many women were raped and 43 homes torched.
“This bandit claimed that I was very grateful to the paramilitaries for this massacre, because their freed six hostages, including a cousin of mine, and that my brother Santiago made available 20 paramilitaries for this crime”, said Uribe referring to the detained witness. The President added that the investigations must continue, but that the judges should treat with caution testimonies of “a bandit pushed by sentiments of revenge toward an honest citizen”; he added that he could prove his innocence. Based on information gathered by Radio Caracol, the accusations were made against President Uribe from prison on February 15 by Francisco Enrique Villalba Hernandez, a former paramilitary member convicted for two massacres, including that of El Aro, and detained at Bogotá’s La Picota prison. The President’s cousin, the former senator Mario Uribe, surrendered to authorities after the attorney-general’s office issued an arrest warrant for his alleged ties with right-wing paramilitary groups.
24 April 2008
Colombian President Alvaro Uribe yesterday revealed that he is under investigation for alleged involvement in the planning of a massacre of farmers when he was governor of the Antioquia department. In an interview with Caracol Radio, Uribe said that an inmate accused him of meeting in La Caucana with Salvatore Mancuso, head of the ‘Bloque Catatumbo’ paramilitary group, and the army generals Ospina and Rosso, to plan a massacre carried out on 22 October 1997 in ‘El Aro’, in which 15 people were tortured and killed, many women were raped and 43 homes torched.
“This bandit claimed that I was very grateful to the paramilitaries for this massacre, because their freed six hostages, including a cousin of mine, and that my brother Santiago made available 20 paramilitaries for this crime”, said Uribe referring to the detained witness. The President added that the investigations must continue, but that the judges should treat with caution testimonies of “a bandit pushed by sentiments of revenge toward an honest citizen”; he added that he could prove his innocence. Based on information gathered by Radio Caracol, the accusations were made against President Uribe from prison on February 15 by Francisco Enrique Villalba Hernandez, a former paramilitary member convicted for two massacres, including that of El Aro, and detained at Bogotá’s La Picota prison. The President’s cousin, the former senator Mario Uribe, surrendered to authorities after the attorney-general’s office issued an arrest warrant for his alleged ties with right-wing paramilitary groups.
THOUSANDS DISPLACED IN CLASHES BETWEEN ‘NEW’ PARAMILITARIES AND GUERRILLAS.
MISNA
24 April 2008
Over 90,000 indigenous and Afro-Colombians of the San Juan river region, in the north-eastern department of Choco, were forced to flee from their villages over the past weeks due to violent fighting between militants of the extreme-right ‘Aguilas Negras’ and ‘Los Rastrojos’ groups and guerrillas for control over the drug-trafficking ring. The peace commission for the Choco administration, Luis Enrique Murillo, expressed “deep concern over the conditions of the civil population of the region”. Thousands of ‘desplazados’ (displaced) have poured into the towns of Quibdó and Istmina seeking refuge at friends houses or in shelters set up by local Non-Governmental Organisations and the Church. “Gunmen suddenly storm villages. The people don’t even ask them who they are, they just flee in terror”, said Zuria Urrutia, sheltered in Quibdó. According to investigators, the ‘Aguilas Negras’ are former members of the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC) paramilitary group demobilised as part of a controversial peace process with the government; ‘Los Rastrojos’ are instead former soldiers and hitmen at the service of the Norte del Valle drug cartel. The clashes with the guerrilla intensified last Autumn after the capture of Diego Montoya and the death, in February in Venezuela, of Wilmer Varela, heads of the two main factions of the Norte del Valle cartel.
24 April 2008
Over 90,000 indigenous and Afro-Colombians of the San Juan river region, in the north-eastern department of Choco, were forced to flee from their villages over the past weeks due to violent fighting between militants of the extreme-right ‘Aguilas Negras’ and ‘Los Rastrojos’ groups and guerrillas for control over the drug-trafficking ring. The peace commission for the Choco administration, Luis Enrique Murillo, expressed “deep concern over the conditions of the civil population of the region”. Thousands of ‘desplazados’ (displaced) have poured into the towns of Quibdó and Istmina seeking refuge at friends houses or in shelters set up by local Non-Governmental Organisations and the Church. “Gunmen suddenly storm villages. The people don’t even ask them who they are, they just flee in terror”, said Zuria Urrutia, sheltered in Quibdó. According to investigators, the ‘Aguilas Negras’ are former members of the United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia (AUC) paramilitary group demobilised as part of a controversial peace process with the government; ‘Los Rastrojos’ are instead former soldiers and hitmen at the service of the Norte del Valle drug cartel. The clashes with the guerrilla intensified last Autumn after the capture of Diego Montoya and the death, in February in Venezuela, of Wilmer Varela, heads of the two main factions of the Norte del Valle cartel.
'PARA-POLITICA': PRESIDENT URIBE’S COUSIN ARRESTED.
MISNA
23 April 2008
The former senator Mario Uribe, cousin of President Alvaro Uribe, handed himself over to Colombian authorities, facing charges of ties with the extreme-right death squads, after Costa Rica rejected his request for political asylum. The former Parliament speaker had taken refuge at the Costa Rican embassy in Bogotá on learning that the Supreme Court had given the go ahead for his arrest as part of the investigation into the so-called ‘para-politica’ case: seven hours later his asylum request was defined “inappropriate” by the Foreign ministry of San Jose. Uribe was taken away by police amid a crowd of human rights activists protesting outside the embassy and was taken to the attorney general’s office, ahead of a decision on where he will be detained. The arrest of Uribe, head of the Democratic Colombia party – part of the government coalition – comes three days after the Supreme Court opened a preliminary investigation into alleged ties with the paramilitaries of the AUC (United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia) also of the current president of Colombia’s Congress, Nancy Gutierrez, of the Radical Change party, also of the majority. Over sixty politicians, for the most part close to President Uribe, are under investigation in the scandal and 31 of them have been jailed.
23 April 2008
The former senator Mario Uribe, cousin of President Alvaro Uribe, handed himself over to Colombian authorities, facing charges of ties with the extreme-right death squads, after Costa Rica rejected his request for political asylum. The former Parliament speaker had taken refuge at the Costa Rican embassy in Bogotá on learning that the Supreme Court had given the go ahead for his arrest as part of the investigation into the so-called ‘para-politica’ case: seven hours later his asylum request was defined “inappropriate” by the Foreign ministry of San Jose. Uribe was taken away by police amid a crowd of human rights activists protesting outside the embassy and was taken to the attorney general’s office, ahead of a decision on where he will be detained. The arrest of Uribe, head of the Democratic Colombia party – part of the government coalition – comes three days after the Supreme Court opened a preliminary investigation into alleged ties with the paramilitaries of the AUC (United Self-Defence Forces of Colombia) also of the current president of Colombia’s Congress, Nancy Gutierrez, of the Radical Change party, also of the majority. Over sixty politicians, for the most part close to President Uribe, are under investigation in the scandal and 31 of them have been jailed.
Ethiopia denies Amnesty mosque-killing accusations.
Mail & Guardian
24 April 2008
Ethiopia criticised Amnesty International on Thursday and said the group's accusations that Ethiopian soldiers killed 21 people at a Mogadishu mosque were "lies" and "propaganda".
Amnesty said on Wednesday the soldiers, who are stationed in Somalia to bolster the interim government, had also captured dozens of children during a raid on the al-Hidaaya mosque earlier this week during operations against Islamist insurgents.
It said an imam and several Islamic scholars were among the dead, and that seven victims had their throats slit.
Zemedkun Tekle, spokesperson for the Ethiopian Ministry of Information, condemned the report.
"Amnesty's allegations are unsubstantiated lies and propaganda that they received from Islamic groups in Somalia. Ethiopia has never been involved in such incidents," he said.
"Ethiopia would have been surprised if Amnesty had said something positive about Ethiopia rather than its usual lies."
Bereket Simon, President Meles Zenawi's special adviser, also criticised the report, noting that the human rights group has no presence in the Horn of Africa nation.
"Amnesty International has no representatives on the ground in Somalia," he said. "It is gathering hearsay and accusing Ethiopia based on false information."-- Reuters
24 April 2008
Ethiopia criticised Amnesty International on Thursday and said the group's accusations that Ethiopian soldiers killed 21 people at a Mogadishu mosque were "lies" and "propaganda".
Amnesty said on Wednesday the soldiers, who are stationed in Somalia to bolster the interim government, had also captured dozens of children during a raid on the al-Hidaaya mosque earlier this week during operations against Islamist insurgents.
It said an imam and several Islamic scholars were among the dead, and that seven victims had their throats slit.
Zemedkun Tekle, spokesperson for the Ethiopian Ministry of Information, condemned the report.
"Amnesty's allegations are unsubstantiated lies and propaganda that they received from Islamic groups in Somalia. Ethiopia has never been involved in such incidents," he said.
"Ethiopia would have been surprised if Amnesty had said something positive about Ethiopia rather than its usual lies."
Bereket Simon, President Meles Zenawi's special adviser, also criticised the report, noting that the human rights group has no presence in the Horn of Africa nation.
"Amnesty International has no representatives on the ground in Somalia," he said. "It is gathering hearsay and accusing Ethiopia based on false information."-- Reuters
Ethiopian Army killed scholars in mosque, says Amnesty.
The Herald
By Andrew Cawthorne
24 April 2008
Amnesty International has accused Ethiopian soldiers of killing 21 people, including an imam and several Islamic scholars, at a Mogadishu mosque and says seven of the victims had their throats slit.
The rights group said the soldiers had also captured dozens of children during the raid on the al Hidaaya mosque in the north of the Somali capital earlier this week during operations against Islamist insurgents.
Ethiopia has thousands of soldiers in neighbouring Somalia to bolster a Western-backed government against rebels fighting an Iraq-style insurgency in the Horn of Africa nation.
The Ethiopian and Somali governments have not responded publicly to accusations of atrocities at the mosque. But they have frequently denied abusing human rights in the fight against groups they call al-Qaeda-backed terrorists.
Amnesty said those killed at the mosque included imam Sheikh Saiid Yaha and several scholars of the moderate Tabligh group that operated there.
"Eye-witnesses report that those killed inside the mosque were unarmed civilians taking no active part in hostilities," Amnesty said.
"Seven of the 21 were reported to have died after their throats were cut - a form of extra-judicial execution practiced by Ethiopian forces in Somalia."
Some moderate Islamist leaders have reacted to the mosque incident, and a recent upsurge of fighting in Mogadishu, by postponing plans to join UN-sponsored peace talks.
More than 100 people have been killed since the weekend in clashes in the coastal capital, and the takeover of several small towns by the Islamists' militant al Shabaab wing.
Washington last month put al Shabaab on its terrorism list.
Amnesty urged the Ethiopian military to release all 41 children it said were held after the mosque raid.
"Witnesses have told Amnesty International that Ethiopian forces would only release the children from their military base in north Mogadishu 'once they had been investigated' and 'if they were not terrorists'," it said.
Some of the children - who were aged as young as nine - were reported to have been freed, though the majority were still in custody, Amnesty said.
Witnesses said they had seen beheaded bodies lying outside the mosque after the fighting.
By Andrew Cawthorne
24 April 2008
Amnesty International has accused Ethiopian soldiers of killing 21 people, including an imam and several Islamic scholars, at a Mogadishu mosque and says seven of the victims had their throats slit.
The rights group said the soldiers had also captured dozens of children during the raid on the al Hidaaya mosque in the north of the Somali capital earlier this week during operations against Islamist insurgents.
Ethiopia has thousands of soldiers in neighbouring Somalia to bolster a Western-backed government against rebels fighting an Iraq-style insurgency in the Horn of Africa nation.
The Ethiopian and Somali governments have not responded publicly to accusations of atrocities at the mosque. But they have frequently denied abusing human rights in the fight against groups they call al-Qaeda-backed terrorists.
Amnesty said those killed at the mosque included imam Sheikh Saiid Yaha and several scholars of the moderate Tabligh group that operated there.
"Eye-witnesses report that those killed inside the mosque were unarmed civilians taking no active part in hostilities," Amnesty said.
"Seven of the 21 were reported to have died after their throats were cut - a form of extra-judicial execution practiced by Ethiopian forces in Somalia."
Some moderate Islamist leaders have reacted to the mosque incident, and a recent upsurge of fighting in Mogadishu, by postponing plans to join UN-sponsored peace talks.
More than 100 people have been killed since the weekend in clashes in the coastal capital, and the takeover of several small towns by the Islamists' militant al Shabaab wing.
Washington last month put al Shabaab on its terrorism list.
Amnesty urged the Ethiopian military to release all 41 children it said were held after the mosque raid.
"Witnesses have told Amnesty International that Ethiopian forces would only release the children from their military base in north Mogadishu 'once they had been investigated' and 'if they were not terrorists'," it said.
Some of the children - who were aged as young as nine - were reported to have been freed, though the majority were still in custody, Amnesty said.
Witnesses said they had seen beheaded bodies lying outside the mosque after the fighting.
Brussels Mayor Bans Protest Demonstration of Kibeho Massacre.
Hirondelle News Agency
23 April 2008
A demonstration organized Tuesday by Rwandan associations in Brussels, Belgium, was banned by the Mayor of the city, officially for "safety reasons ".
However, police allowed a gathering of about 30 people in front of the courthouse, which they did not consider as a protest demonstration.
The members of the Rwandan Civil Society in Exile (SOCIRWA) had planned the demonstration to commemorate massacres of thousands of ethnic Hutus in Kibeho, Southern Rwanda, by the army of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) between 17 and 25 April 1995.
They also claim they wanted to show solidarity with all the victims (Twas, Tutsis and Hutus) massacred by Rwandan criminals since October 1990 to date.
The Rwandan Community of Belgium (CRB) "vehemently" condemned the protest, describing it as a false commemoration.
23 April 2008
A demonstration organized Tuesday by Rwandan associations in Brussels, Belgium, was banned by the Mayor of the city, officially for "safety reasons ".
However, police allowed a gathering of about 30 people in front of the courthouse, which they did not consider as a protest demonstration.
The members of the Rwandan Civil Society in Exile (SOCIRWA) had planned the demonstration to commemorate massacres of thousands of ethnic Hutus in Kibeho, Southern Rwanda, by the army of the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) between 17 and 25 April 1995.
They also claim they wanted to show solidarity with all the victims (Twas, Tutsis and Hutus) massacred by Rwandan criminals since October 1990 to date.
The Rwandan Community of Belgium (CRB) "vehemently" condemned the protest, describing it as a false commemoration.
Ethiopian troops 'took children.'
BBC News
23 April 2008
Amnesty International has accused Ethiopian troops of capturing 40 Somali children during a raid on a mosque last week, and called for their release.
The rights group condemned the killing of more than 20 people, including some religious scholars, during the raid.
It quoted witnesses as saying that many of the dead were unarmed civilians, and that some had had their throats cut.
Ethiopia denied its troops were involved in the killings, which came during fierce clashes with insurgents.
"The safety and welfare of the children must be paramount for all parties," said Amnesty's UK Director Kate Allen.
"The UN Security Council must endeavour to investigate human rights violations committed during the armed conflict."
Somalia's Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein said his government was defending itself, with the support of Ethiopian troops, during the weekend's clashes in the capital.
The injured were taken to hospitals after the fighting, but many fled
But Amnesty said the throat-cuttings were a form of extra-judicial execution practised by Ethiopian forces in Somalia.
The Ethiopian forces said they would only release the children from their military base in north Mogadishu "once they had been investigated" and "if they were not terrorists", witnesses told Amnesty.
Some 80 people were killed during the weekend, local residents say, including at least six religious leaders from the Tabliq Sufi sect, which is not involved in the conflict.
Ghanim Alnajjar, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Somalia, denounced the killing of civilians and called for an immediate ceasefire.
Locals have accused the Ethiopian troops of shelling residential areas of the capital.
"The use of heavy weaponry in areas where civilians are concentrated left reportedly 81 civilians dead and more than 100 wounded," said Mr Alnajjar.
The UN says more than half of Mogadishu's population has fled recent fighting in the city, and has warned that Somalia faces the possible twin catastrophes of war and famine.
23 April 2008
Amnesty International has accused Ethiopian troops of capturing 40 Somali children during a raid on a mosque last week, and called for their release.
The rights group condemned the killing of more than 20 people, including some religious scholars, during the raid.
It quoted witnesses as saying that many of the dead were unarmed civilians, and that some had had their throats cut.
Ethiopia denied its troops were involved in the killings, which came during fierce clashes with insurgents.
"The safety and welfare of the children must be paramount for all parties," said Amnesty's UK Director Kate Allen.
"The UN Security Council must endeavour to investigate human rights violations committed during the armed conflict."
Somalia's Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein said his government was defending itself, with the support of Ethiopian troops, during the weekend's clashes in the capital.
The injured were taken to hospitals after the fighting, but many fled
But Amnesty said the throat-cuttings were a form of extra-judicial execution practised by Ethiopian forces in Somalia.
The Ethiopian forces said they would only release the children from their military base in north Mogadishu "once they had been investigated" and "if they were not terrorists", witnesses told Amnesty.
Some 80 people were killed during the weekend, local residents say, including at least six religious leaders from the Tabliq Sufi sect, which is not involved in the conflict.
Ghanim Alnajjar, the UN special rapporteur on human rights in Somalia, denounced the killing of civilians and called for an immediate ceasefire.
Locals have accused the Ethiopian troops of shelling residential areas of the capital.
"The use of heavy weaponry in areas where civilians are concentrated left reportedly 81 civilians dead and more than 100 wounded," said Mr Alnajjar.
The UN says more than half of Mogadishu's population has fled recent fighting in the city, and has warned that Somalia faces the possible twin catastrophes of war and famine.
23 April, 2008
BUJUMBURA: NEW ATTACK OVERNIGHT, MORTAR HITS NUNCIATURE.
MISNA
23 April 2008
Rocket, grenade and mortar fire resumed last night shortly after 9:00p.m local time in the Burundian capital Bujumbura. Based on information from MISNA sources contacted in the city, the attacks did not apparently cause any serious consequences and there are no reports so far of casualties. “It was certainly not a heavy attack like that of the past days (when over twenty people were killed), but it was enough to cause panic once again among the people”, said a local source. One of the around 10 mortar shells hit a wing of the building of the Apostolic Nunciature, seat of the diplomatic mission of the Holy See, in the city. MISNA’s local sources refer that the mortar hit an annex in the gardens of the Nunciature, where the offices and rooms of the personnel (fortunately empty) are situated, causing significant damages to the structure but no casualties. Reports in circulation appear to confirm that the Vatican diplomatic mission was hit accidentally. The Burundian army attributed the overnight attack to the rebels of the National Liberation Forces (FNL), responsible for two similar actions in the past three weeks. After last week’s violence that continued until Monday, the army and rebels appeared to have reached a truce and resumed negotiations that were at a standstill for years despite international efforts.
23 April 2008
Rocket, grenade and mortar fire resumed last night shortly after 9:00p.m local time in the Burundian capital Bujumbura. Based on information from MISNA sources contacted in the city, the attacks did not apparently cause any serious consequences and there are no reports so far of casualties. “It was certainly not a heavy attack like that of the past days (when over twenty people were killed), but it was enough to cause panic once again among the people”, said a local source. One of the around 10 mortar shells hit a wing of the building of the Apostolic Nunciature, seat of the diplomatic mission of the Holy See, in the city. MISNA’s local sources refer that the mortar hit an annex in the gardens of the Nunciature, where the offices and rooms of the personnel (fortunately empty) are situated, causing significant damages to the structure but no casualties. Reports in circulation appear to confirm that the Vatican diplomatic mission was hit accidentally. The Burundian army attributed the overnight attack to the rebels of the National Liberation Forces (FNL), responsible for two similar actions in the past three weeks. After last week’s violence that continued until Monday, the army and rebels appeared to have reached a truce and resumed negotiations that were at a standstill for years despite international efforts.
WITNESS: RWANDA GOVT, RPF REBELS ENGAGED IN SECRET TALKS.
Hirondelle News Agency
22 April 2008
A protected witness testified before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Tuesday that secret negotiations had proceeded on several occasions between the then Rwandan government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) between 1990 and 1993.
Called by the defence of Edouard Karemera, a former Vice President of the then ruling party, the MRND, the witness, known only by pseudonym “LLK “ and who seems to have been involved in the Rwandan diplomacy under the former regime, explained that these meetings had initially been held in Gbadolite then in Kampala, Brussels, Harare and Paris.
They preceded the opening of official negotiations in Arusha, Tanzania.
The last meeting, specified LLK, coincided with an agreement concluded between the RPF and some Rwandan opposition parties following a meeting which was held in Brussels between 23 May and 9 June 1992. "The RPF then felt strong enough to negotiate", he responded when questioned by defence attorney Felix Sow of Senegal.
After the RPF attack from Uganda in October 1990, the Economic Community of the Great Lakes Countries (CEPGL) had charged President Mobutu Sese Seko with mediation, but he had been quickly rejected.
It was only in 1992 that another official mediation was launched under the chairmanship of the then Tanzanian President, Ali Hassan Mwinyi.
22 April 2008
A protected witness testified before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) Tuesday that secret negotiations had proceeded on several occasions between the then Rwandan government and the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) between 1990 and 1993.
Called by the defence of Edouard Karemera, a former Vice President of the then ruling party, the MRND, the witness, known only by pseudonym “LLK “ and who seems to have been involved in the Rwandan diplomacy under the former regime, explained that these meetings had initially been held in Gbadolite then in Kampala, Brussels, Harare and Paris.
They preceded the opening of official negotiations in Arusha, Tanzania.
The last meeting, specified LLK, coincided with an agreement concluded between the RPF and some Rwandan opposition parties following a meeting which was held in Brussels between 23 May and 9 June 1992. "The RPF then felt strong enough to negotiate", he responded when questioned by defence attorney Felix Sow of Senegal.
After the RPF attack from Uganda in October 1990, the Economic Community of the Great Lakes Countries (CEPGL) had charged President Mobutu Sese Seko with mediation, but he had been quickly rejected.
It was only in 1992 that another official mediation was launched under the chairmanship of the then Tanzanian President, Ali Hassan Mwinyi.
EXPERT CRITICISES PROSECUTOR’S TRANSFER MOTIONS OF SUSPECTS TO KIGALI.
Hirondelle News Agency
22 April 2008
An expert witness at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Andre Guichaoua, has criticised the Prosecutor’s transfer motions of some of the 1994 genocide suspects to Kigali for trials, saying that fairness, respect for civil and political rights and sound management practice cannot be decreed and cannot be negotiated.
In his comments published in the French press, the French sociologist and a specialist in Rwanda stated categorically his reservations over the transfer requests of defendants filed in several chambers. The first of these proceedings, the one on the transfer of Yusuf Munyakazi, a former Rwandan businessman, will begin Thursday at the Arusha-based UN Court.
"By calling for the transfer of the tribunal archives and the transfer s of accused who have not yet been tried or arrested (...) the present Rwandan authorities intend to usurp the work and the legitimacy of the ICTR notwithstanding the fact that these same authorities were originally envisaged as targets of inquiry in a comprehensive prosecution identification strategy”, states Guichaoua, pointing to the absence of any prosecution against the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF), currently the party in power, over the alleged atrocities committed during the 1994 genocide.
"To what point will the ICTR accept to submit to obligation of political realism that the present Rwandan regime imposes to all international actors as the price to be paid for their vacillation before the massacres and the 1994 genocide?”, he continues.
Such an attitude would be equivalent, according to him, “to the very same mistakes as before when similar good grades were granted to former regimes”.
"Confidence in the Rwandan judiciary can only be built over the long term through trial and experience. It has, firstly, to be recognized and shared by the Rwandan people and international public opinion. This is obviously far from being the case today”, he concluded.
22 April 2008
An expert witness at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), Andre Guichaoua, has criticised the Prosecutor’s transfer motions of some of the 1994 genocide suspects to Kigali for trials, saying that fairness, respect for civil and political rights and sound management practice cannot be decreed and cannot be negotiated.
In his comments published in the French press, the French sociologist and a specialist in Rwanda stated categorically his reservations over the transfer requests of defendants filed in several chambers. The first of these proceedings, the one on the transfer of Yusuf Munyakazi, a former Rwandan businessman, will begin Thursday at the Arusha-based UN Court.
"By calling for the transfer of the tribunal archives and the transfer s of accused who have not yet been tried or arrested (...) the present Rwandan authorities intend to usurp the work and the legitimacy of the ICTR notwithstanding the fact that these same authorities were originally envisaged as targets of inquiry in a comprehensive prosecution identification strategy”, states Guichaoua, pointing to the absence of any prosecution against the Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF), currently the party in power, over the alleged atrocities committed during the 1994 genocide.
"To what point will the ICTR accept to submit to obligation of political realism that the present Rwandan regime imposes to all international actors as the price to be paid for their vacillation before the massacres and the 1994 genocide?”, he continues.
Such an attitude would be equivalent, according to him, “to the very same mistakes as before when similar good grades were granted to former regimes”.
"Confidence in the Rwandan judiciary can only be built over the long term through trial and experience. It has, firstly, to be recognized and shared by the Rwandan people and international public opinion. This is obviously far from being the case today”, he concluded.
DEFENCE WITNESS SAYS EX-MINISTER MUGIRANEZA DID NOT PARTICIPATE IN 1994 GENOCIDE.
Hirondelle News Agency
22 April 2008
A Rwandan State Attorney, Jean Rusatira, told the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) that Prosper Mugiraneza, former Minister for Civil Service during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, was not mentioned among the accused who took part in the massacres.
Mugiraneza is charged for genocide and crimes against humanity alongside three other former ministers --Jerome Bicamumpaka, former Minister for Foreign Affairs; Casimir Bizimungu, ex-Minister for Health; and former Minister for Commerce Justin Mugenzi. All four have pleaded not guilty.
Led by Mugiraneza’s American lead counsel Tom Moran, the defence witness, who was one of the members of the bench which handled genocide cases in Kigarama commune in Kibungo prefecture from where Mugiraneza hailed, testified that the accused’s name never featured in the two judgments he participated to draft.
However, the witness failed to defend his argument when the Nigerian prosecuting attorney Ibonokulu Babajide mentioned to him a name of an accused, Cyasa Habimana, who he had admitted was one of the deadly killers but the name never featured in the documents which were tabled before the Chamber as supporting evidence.
“Do you agree that it is possible for somebody to be found guilty on an offence and then the name could not be mentioned in the two documents?” asked the prosecuting counsel. The witness quickly answered: “I don’t understand the question well.”
Rusatira then responded that he wondered why Habimana’s name went missing in the document.
Earlier, the witness told the court that he saw the accused for the first time during the trial.
The witness concluded his two-day testimony Tuesday.
22 April 2008
A Rwandan State Attorney, Jean Rusatira, told the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) that Prosper Mugiraneza, former Minister for Civil Service during the 1994 Rwandan genocide, was not mentioned among the accused who took part in the massacres.
Mugiraneza is charged for genocide and crimes against humanity alongside three other former ministers --Jerome Bicamumpaka, former Minister for Foreign Affairs; Casimir Bizimungu, ex-Minister for Health; and former Minister for Commerce Justin Mugenzi. All four have pleaded not guilty.
Led by Mugiraneza’s American lead counsel Tom Moran, the defence witness, who was one of the members of the bench which handled genocide cases in Kigarama commune in Kibungo prefecture from where Mugiraneza hailed, testified that the accused’s name never featured in the two judgments he participated to draft.
However, the witness failed to defend his argument when the Nigerian prosecuting attorney Ibonokulu Babajide mentioned to him a name of an accused, Cyasa Habimana, who he had admitted was one of the deadly killers but the name never featured in the documents which were tabled before the Chamber as supporting evidence.
“Do you agree that it is possible for somebody to be found guilty on an offence and then the name could not be mentioned in the two documents?” asked the prosecuting counsel. The witness quickly answered: “I don’t understand the question well.”
Rusatira then responded that he wondered why Habimana’s name went missing in the document.
Earlier, the witness told the court that he saw the accused for the first time during the trial.
The witness concluded his two-day testimony Tuesday.
HISTORIC HEARING OVER TRANSFER OF GENOCIDE ACCUSED TO RWANDA SET FOR THURSDAY.
Hirondelle News Agency
22 April 2008
The first hearing of transfer motion to Rwanda of persons accused of 1994 genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is set for Thursday in the case of former businessman Yussuf Munyakazi, a hearing which is widely expected to determine the completion strategy of the UN tribunal.
Munyakazi, 73, is accused of genocide, complicity to genocide and extermination. The ex-businessman in Cyangugu province, southern Rwanda, has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The motion requesting his transfer was filed on 7 September 2007, within the framework of the ICTR completion strategy, which wants to transfer some cases to national jurisdictions in order to finish by the end of the year all first instance trials as directed by the Security Council.
Seven accused held in Arusha are currently awaiting their trials. Three others are detained in Europe awaiting their transfers to the ICTR, whereas 13 suspects are still on the run.
But, apart from France, which has agreed to try two of them, countries not having a link with the defendants seem hardly interested in the ICTR cases; making Rwanda the main potential destination.
Thus since June 2007, ICTR Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow, taking into account evolution of the Rwandan judicial system and in particular, the recent abolition of the death penalty, has filed motions to transfer to Kigali five accused persons, including Munyakazi.
However, organizations for the defence of human rights have strongly opposed the transfers, alleging that Rwanda does not yet have the essential criteria necessary for a fair and free trial.
On the other hand, Kigali argues that its courts, which have been trying genocide case since 1998, are better equipped, for the purpose than any other national jurisdiction.
Based on the briefs already filed, Thursday’s hearing is expected to be a crucial showdown between the two camps which are equally represented: On one side, the ICTR prosecutor, the Rwandan government and the bar of Kigali and on the other hand the defence , the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association ( ICDAA) and the New York- based Human Rights Watch (HRW).
The main debaters will, of course, be the Prosecutor and the lawyers for Munyakazi.
The four others to contribute to the debate are only "Friends of the Court" (Amicus Curie) and they will only intervene on legal issues which might be important for the judges’ consideration in the case.
The trial is before Judges Ines Weinberg de Roca (presiding), Lee Muthoga and Robert Fremr.
Whatever the outcome of the judgement may be, it is expected to be subject of an appeal by either the defence or the prosecutor. The final decision will be crucial barometer for the other motions, current or yet to come, even if the motions must be examined individually.
The others accused targeted by transfer requests to Kigali are: former Commander of Ngoma Camp Lieutenant Ildephonse Hategekimana, businessman Gaspard Kanyarukiga, former Mayor Jean Baptist Gatete and former Inspector of Judicial Police, Fulgence Kaysihema. The latter is still at large.
22 April 2008
The first hearing of transfer motion to Rwanda of persons accused of 1994 genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) is set for Thursday in the case of former businessman Yussuf Munyakazi, a hearing which is widely expected to determine the completion strategy of the UN tribunal.
Munyakazi, 73, is accused of genocide, complicity to genocide and extermination. The ex-businessman in Cyangugu province, southern Rwanda, has pleaded not guilty to the charges.
The motion requesting his transfer was filed on 7 September 2007, within the framework of the ICTR completion strategy, which wants to transfer some cases to national jurisdictions in order to finish by the end of the year all first instance trials as directed by the Security Council.
Seven accused held in Arusha are currently awaiting their trials. Three others are detained in Europe awaiting their transfers to the ICTR, whereas 13 suspects are still on the run.
But, apart from France, which has agreed to try two of them, countries not having a link with the defendants seem hardly interested in the ICTR cases; making Rwanda the main potential destination.
Thus since June 2007, ICTR Prosecutor Hassan Bubacar Jallow, taking into account evolution of the Rwandan judicial system and in particular, the recent abolition of the death penalty, has filed motions to transfer to Kigali five accused persons, including Munyakazi.
However, organizations for the defence of human rights have strongly opposed the transfers, alleging that Rwanda does not yet have the essential criteria necessary for a fair and free trial.
On the other hand, Kigali argues that its courts, which have been trying genocide case since 1998, are better equipped, for the purpose than any other national jurisdiction.
Based on the briefs already filed, Thursday’s hearing is expected to be a crucial showdown between the two camps which are equally represented: On one side, the ICTR prosecutor, the Rwandan government and the bar of Kigali and on the other hand the defence , the International Criminal Defence Attorneys Association ( ICDAA) and the New York- based Human Rights Watch (HRW).
The main debaters will, of course, be the Prosecutor and the lawyers for Munyakazi.
The four others to contribute to the debate are only "Friends of the Court" (Amicus Curie) and they will only intervene on legal issues which might be important for the judges’ consideration in the case.
The trial is before Judges Ines Weinberg de Roca (presiding), Lee Muthoga and Robert Fremr.
Whatever the outcome of the judgement may be, it is expected to be subject of an appeal by either the defence or the prosecutor. The final decision will be crucial barometer for the other motions, current or yet to come, even if the motions must be examined individually.
The others accused targeted by transfer requests to Kigali are: former Commander of Ngoma Camp Lieutenant Ildephonse Hategekimana, businessman Gaspard Kanyarukiga, former Mayor Jean Baptist Gatete and former Inspector of Judicial Police, Fulgence Kaysihema. The latter is still at large.
ONE OF PRESIDENT URIBE’S COUSINS ARRESTED.
MISNA
22 April 2008
The procurator of Bogotà had ordered the arrest of Mario Uribe, who is a one of president Alvaro Uribe’s cousins and president of the ‘Colombia democratica’ party on charges of having ties to the paramilitaries. In a communiqué, the procurator confirms the arrest and notes that Mario Uribe cannot be released on bail, who is accused of criminal association for the promotion of illegal armed groups. The local press says there is evidence that Uribe participated in two meetings, during which he reached accords with paramilitary leaders Salvatore Mancuso and Jairo Castillo Peralta, aka ‘Pitirri’, to gain political benefits from the activities of armed groups. The decision has been signed by procurator Ramiro MarÃn and it involves a leader of the Colombian political scene in what was renamed the ‘para-political’, scandal. For over a year the investigations have targeted collusion between politics and the extreme right wing paramilitary squads; it has led to the arrest of 28 current and former members of parliament, most of who belong to the government coalition.
22 April 2008
The procurator of Bogotà had ordered the arrest of Mario Uribe, who is a one of president Alvaro Uribe’s cousins and president of the ‘Colombia democratica’ party on charges of having ties to the paramilitaries. In a communiqué, the procurator confirms the arrest and notes that Mario Uribe cannot be released on bail, who is accused of criminal association for the promotion of illegal armed groups. The local press says there is evidence that Uribe participated in two meetings, during which he reached accords with paramilitary leaders Salvatore Mancuso and Jairo Castillo Peralta, aka ‘Pitirri’, to gain political benefits from the activities of armed groups. The decision has been signed by procurator Ramiro MarÃn and it involves a leader of the Colombian political scene in what was renamed the ‘para-political’, scandal. For over a year the investigations have targeted collusion between politics and the extreme right wing paramilitary squads; it has led to the arrest of 28 current and former members of parliament, most of who belong to the government coalition.
ELECTIONS: MAOISTS WIN FIRST PHASE.
MISNA
22 April 2008
The Maoist party has won 120 seats for the elections to nominate members to the Constituent Assembly; this represents half of the 240 assigned seats and is close to four times higher than their closest rivals. The results are the first definitive ones emerging from the first count of the elections that took place last April 10 as communicated by the electoral commission. The Nepalese Congress party, the country’s largest, received 37 seats and the Marxist Leninist party received 33; the Madheshi people’s rights forum, a party launched a year ago to defend the rights of the Madhesi community in the south, which also features autonomist claims, received ten votes.
Meanwhile, the vote count for the remaining 335 seats continues; these are assigned on a proportional basis. The final results are t be announced after the parties present their lists of candidates even as the vote count for the Constituent is expected to be completed by Wednesday. The partial and unofficial results project the Maoists in the lead with 30% of the votes, which are equivalent to 100 seats. Finally, 26 seats shall be assigned by the prime minister in concert with the executive. A new government shall be nominated on the basis of the Constituent. The Maoist party has already expressed its desire to lead the new executive, but political analysts say it is unlikely that the former rebels shall win an absolute majority in the Assembly, which is to include 601 representatives; it shall therefore have to make deals with rivals to form a coalition.
22 April 2008
The Maoist party has won 120 seats for the elections to nominate members to the Constituent Assembly; this represents half of the 240 assigned seats and is close to four times higher than their closest rivals. The results are the first definitive ones emerging from the first count of the elections that took place last April 10 as communicated by the electoral commission. The Nepalese Congress party, the country’s largest, received 37 seats and the Marxist Leninist party received 33; the Madheshi people’s rights forum, a party launched a year ago to defend the rights of the Madhesi community in the south, which also features autonomist claims, received ten votes.
Meanwhile, the vote count for the remaining 335 seats continues; these are assigned on a proportional basis. The final results are t be announced after the parties present their lists of candidates even as the vote count for the Constituent is expected to be completed by Wednesday. The partial and unofficial results project the Maoists in the lead with 30% of the votes, which are equivalent to 100 seats. Finally, 26 seats shall be assigned by the prime minister in concert with the executive. A new government shall be nominated on the basis of the Constituent. The Maoist party has already expressed its desire to lead the new executive, but political analysts say it is unlikely that the former rebels shall win an absolute majority in the Assembly, which is to include 601 representatives; it shall therefore have to make deals with rivals to form a coalition.
PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: ANOTHER DELAY, THIS TIME ‘INDEFINITE’.
MISNA
22 April 2008
The Lebanese Parliament session for the election of a new President, a post vacant since November, was delayed indefinitely. The announcement was made by the parliament speaker, the Shiite Nabih Berri, explaining that for the 18th time since last September despite the presence in parliament of a number of MPs from the rival groupings, “the requisite two-thirds quorum to hold the vote was not reached”. Berri added that if the majority and opposition didn’t reach an accord for dialogue, he would “set a new session in three days at the most”.
“I prefer that the date for a new session be decided in round-table talks between the sides. After this accord, we will directly elect as president general Michel Suleiman”, added the parliament speaker. The presidency, which based on constitutional conventions dating back to the 1943 National Pact (reviewed under the Ta’if accords) should go to a Maronite Christian, has been vacant since November 24 at the end of the term of former president Emile Lahoud. The opposition, headed by the Shiite Hezbollah movement, demands veto power in a new national unity government; a request rejected by the majority that backs the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora.
22 April 2008
The Lebanese Parliament session for the election of a new President, a post vacant since November, was delayed indefinitely. The announcement was made by the parliament speaker, the Shiite Nabih Berri, explaining that for the 18th time since last September despite the presence in parliament of a number of MPs from the rival groupings, “the requisite two-thirds quorum to hold the vote was not reached”. Berri added that if the majority and opposition didn’t reach an accord for dialogue, he would “set a new session in three days at the most”.
“I prefer that the date for a new session be decided in round-table talks between the sides. After this accord, we will directly elect as president general Michel Suleiman”, added the parliament speaker. The presidency, which based on constitutional conventions dating back to the 1943 National Pact (reviewed under the Ta’if accords) should go to a Maronite Christian, has been vacant since November 24 at the end of the term of former president Emile Lahoud. The opposition, headed by the Shiite Hezbollah movement, demands veto power in a new national unity government; a request rejected by the majority that backs the government of Prime Minister Fuad Siniora.
CLASHES CONTINUE: CIVILIANS FLEE.
MISNA
21 April 2008
At least six rebels and one soldier were killed, while five civilians were wounded in clashes that occurred this morning north of the capital Bujumbura, in Bubanza province, among regular soldiers and rebels from the FNL, the last active rebel group in the country, said military sources. Other witnesses said that they saw the corpses of four dead soldiers after clashes in Gihanga. The administrative person in the borough, where schools and offices were closed, said that the fighting has also prompted about 1000 people to flee. The army is said to have attacked an FNL group this morning, after the group led a massive offensive against military targets in the capital and elsewhere, leaving a toll of 26 dead among soldiers and rebels, in addition to those who were killed and wounded today.
21 April 2008
At least six rebels and one soldier were killed, while five civilians were wounded in clashes that occurred this morning north of the capital Bujumbura, in Bubanza province, among regular soldiers and rebels from the FNL, the last active rebel group in the country, said military sources. Other witnesses said that they saw the corpses of four dead soldiers after clashes in Gihanga. The administrative person in the borough, where schools and offices were closed, said that the fighting has also prompted about 1000 people to flee. The army is said to have attacked an FNL group this morning, after the group led a massive offensive against military targets in the capital and elsewhere, leaving a toll of 26 dead among soldiers and rebels, in addition to those who were killed and wounded today.
MOGADISHU: AFTER WEEKEND “MASSACRE”, MORE TENSION IN NORTH.
MISNA
21 April 2008
Sporadic gunfire can still be heard in the Suqa Holaha neighbourhood, the area of the cattle market in northern Mogadishu theatre over the weekend to heavy fighting between Ethiopian troops and anti-government insurgents.
The toll of the worst violence in months is unknown, though medical sources contacted by MISNA in the city deem credible the toll of 81 dead and over a hundred wounded, released yesterday by the prominent local Elman Peace and Human Rights Organisation. “Just in our hospital we have 47 wounded, 26 of which in extremely critical condition. Two patients died in the past hours from their injuries”, said to MISNA Ali Mohalim Gedi, vice-director of the Medina Hospital, among the main medical facilities of the Somali capital. Local sources refer that the entire area of northern Mogadishu, particularly the neighbourhoods of Yaqshid and Huriwa (home to the SOS Kinderdorf hospital, until a few months ago run by Italian Consolata missionaries), remain off-limits this morning due to the massive presence of Ethiopian troops.
“There are corpses still lying in the streets. No one dares circulate in certain areas, because the Ethiopian soldiers are shooting on sight”, said a MISNA source, who asked to remain anonymous, specifying that the heavy artillery fire of the Addis Ababa forces destroyed a large part of the Suqa Holaha area. “We witnessed an actual massacre”, said another humanitarian source, explaining that simple citizens are joining the ‘muqawamah’ forces (literally resistance). “If calm isn’t restored, there is risk of a large-scale popular uprising. Anyone with a weapon will join the resistance, also because if Ethiopian soldiers continue to shoot on sight it will no longer be a ‘political’ matter, but of mere survival”, added the source.
Meanwhile, reports also indicate the arrest in Mogadishu of a reporter of Radio Shabelle, among the most popular and followed radios of Somalia. The news reporter Abdi Mohamed Ismael was arrested at a junction not far from the area theatre to the weekend fighting and was taken to a military base. The reasons remain unknown behind the arrest, denounced by Radio Shabelle that calls for the reporter’s immediate release.
21 April 2008
Sporadic gunfire can still be heard in the Suqa Holaha neighbourhood, the area of the cattle market in northern Mogadishu theatre over the weekend to heavy fighting between Ethiopian troops and anti-government insurgents.
The toll of the worst violence in months is unknown, though medical sources contacted by MISNA in the city deem credible the toll of 81 dead and over a hundred wounded, released yesterday by the prominent local Elman Peace and Human Rights Organisation. “Just in our hospital we have 47 wounded, 26 of which in extremely critical condition. Two patients died in the past hours from their injuries”, said to MISNA Ali Mohalim Gedi, vice-director of the Medina Hospital, among the main medical facilities of the Somali capital. Local sources refer that the entire area of northern Mogadishu, particularly the neighbourhoods of Yaqshid and Huriwa (home to the SOS Kinderdorf hospital, until a few months ago run by Italian Consolata missionaries), remain off-limits this morning due to the massive presence of Ethiopian troops.
“There are corpses still lying in the streets. No one dares circulate in certain areas, because the Ethiopian soldiers are shooting on sight”, said a MISNA source, who asked to remain anonymous, specifying that the heavy artillery fire of the Addis Ababa forces destroyed a large part of the Suqa Holaha area. “We witnessed an actual massacre”, said another humanitarian source, explaining that simple citizens are joining the ‘muqawamah’ forces (literally resistance). “If calm isn’t restored, there is risk of a large-scale popular uprising. Anyone with a weapon will join the resistance, also because if Ethiopian soldiers continue to shoot on sight it will no longer be a ‘political’ matter, but of mere survival”, added the source.
Meanwhile, reports also indicate the arrest in Mogadishu of a reporter of Radio Shabelle, among the most popular and followed radios of Somalia. The news reporter Abdi Mohamed Ismael was arrested at a junction not far from the area theatre to the weekend fighting and was taken to a military base. The reasons remain unknown behind the arrest, denounced by Radio Shabelle that calls for the reporter’s immediate release.
GOVERNMENT AND MILITIAS REACH AGREEMENT IN NORTHWEST PROVINCE.
MISNA
22 April 2008
The new Pakistani government and one of the most active extremist groups, Tehrik Nifaz-e-Shariat Mohammadi (TNSM), in the Northwest province, at the border with Afghanistan, have reached an accord. This is the first achievement resulting from a new political dialogue strategy with the pro-Taliban militias, which differs from the more military approach followed by president Pervez Musharraf.
TNSM was banned in 2002 and its leader, the 70-year old maulana Sufi Mohammad, has been released from prison after the accord that was signed yesterday. Mohammad, arrested five years ago, was recently moved to the hospital in Peshawar. The TNSM has accepted to renounce armed actions, including suicide attacks, in exchange for the ability to conduct political activities aimed at the application of Islamic law (sharia) in the country. Security operations against TNSM will have to cease but the army is authorized to act in case of attack. Pakistani news sources said that, apart from Sufi Mohammad, eight other TNSM leaders have been released. The aim of the pact is also to quietly weaken the TNSM’s ties to the more dangerous group in the Swat valley led by one Maulana Fazlullah, Sufi Mohammad’s son in law, whose spokesman has reiterated the group’s continued will to fight.
22 April 2008
The new Pakistani government and one of the most active extremist groups, Tehrik Nifaz-e-Shariat Mohammadi (TNSM), in the Northwest province, at the border with Afghanistan, have reached an accord. This is the first achievement resulting from a new political dialogue strategy with the pro-Taliban militias, which differs from the more military approach followed by president Pervez Musharraf.
TNSM was banned in 2002 and its leader, the 70-year old maulana Sufi Mohammad, has been released from prison after the accord that was signed yesterday. Mohammad, arrested five years ago, was recently moved to the hospital in Peshawar. The TNSM has accepted to renounce armed actions, including suicide attacks, in exchange for the ability to conduct political activities aimed at the application of Islamic law (sharia) in the country. Security operations against TNSM will have to cease but the army is authorized to act in case of attack. Pakistani news sources said that, apart from Sufi Mohammad, eight other TNSM leaders have been released. The aim of the pact is also to quietly weaken the TNSM’s ties to the more dangerous group in the Swat valley led by one Maulana Fazlullah, Sufi Mohammad’s son in law, whose spokesman has reiterated the group’s continued will to fight.
22 April, 2008
MRND TRIAL: CHAMBER TRIES TO STEP ON THE GAS PEDAL.
Hirondelle News Agency
21 April 2008
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) within the framework of its efforts to accelerate the trial of the three top former leaders of the former presidential party (MRND) will enter Monday next week, after two weeks of delay, the defence phase of the case, reports Hirondelle Agency.
According to the Court schedule released on Friday, the former Vice-President of the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND), Edouard Karemera, will be the first to call his witnesses until 30 May, followed by the former president of the party, Mathieu Ngirumpatse from 16 to 18 July.
The defence was to open its case at the resumption of the trial a fortnight ago, but the lawyers stated difficulties in getting witnesses to come to testify.
"After the official holidays, the trial will continue from 18 August to 9 October, then from 27 October to 11 December", the schedule notes.
The order does not, however, schedule a date for the defence of the third defendant, the former Secretary-General of the MRND, Joseph Nzirorera. All three have pleaded not guilty.
This leads to observers to presume that the defence case may continue past the end of the year; theoretically the end of the first instance trials. The UN Security Council has directed that all first instance trials end by December, 2008.
In addition, the chamber has decided that the prosecutor can not seek during the cross-examination against the defendants, except if it results from the main questioning. However, the prosecutor will have a time of cross-examination equivalent to the time of the main questioning.
21 April 2008
The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) within the framework of its efforts to accelerate the trial of the three top former leaders of the former presidential party (MRND) will enter Monday next week, after two weeks of delay, the defence phase of the case, reports Hirondelle Agency.
According to the Court schedule released on Friday, the former Vice-President of the National Republican Movement for Democracy and Development (MRND), Edouard Karemera, will be the first to call his witnesses until 30 May, followed by the former president of the party, Mathieu Ngirumpatse from 16 to 18 July.
The defence was to open its case at the resumption of the trial a fortnight ago, but the lawyers stated difficulties in getting witnesses to come to testify.
"After the official holidays, the trial will continue from 18 August to 9 October, then from 27 October to 11 December", the schedule notes.
The order does not, however, schedule a date for the defence of the third defendant, the former Secretary-General of the MRND, Joseph Nzirorera. All three have pleaded not guilty.
This leads to observers to presume that the defence case may continue past the end of the year; theoretically the end of the first instance trials. The UN Security Council has directed that all first instance trials end by December, 2008.
In addition, the chamber has decided that the prosecutor can not seek during the cross-examination against the defendants, except if it results from the main questioning. However, the prosecutor will have a time of cross-examination equivalent to the time of the main questioning.
20 April, 2008
Witnesses Describe 'Operation Storm.'
By Goran Jungvirth
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
18 April 2008
Witnesses told the Hague war crimes tribunal this week that they saw dozens of dead bodies, many of them civilians, during a Croatian army offensive to retake Serb-held territory in 1995.
They were testifying at the trial of three Croatian generals accused of responsibility for crimes committed by troops under their command in the south-east Krajina region.
Prosecutors say Ante Gotovina, the most senior Croatian to be brought before the tribunal, was in command of Operation Storm, which took place from August 4 to 8, 1995, in the course of which at least 350 Serb civilians were killed and 200,000 were forced to flee.
Gotovina is charged, along with Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac, with orchestrating the permanent removal of Serbs from Croatia between July and September 1995. Rebel Serbs, heavily aided by the then Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, had held some 25 per cent of Croatia’s territory since 1991.
At the beginning of the trial, the prosecution argued that Operation Storm was part of a joint criminal enterprise led by the late Croatian president Franjo Tudjman with the intention of expelling Serbs from the region.
This week, the defence argued that local Serb political and military leaders had planned a mass departure in the event of a Croatian army offensive – the implication being that the exodus was a premeditated strategy on the part of the Serbs.
Prosecution witness Andries Dreyer, a former security coordinator at the United Nations base in Knin, the regional centre of Krajina, described seeing several the dead bodies of men and women who had been killed at close range, at the time relevant to the indictment.
“If I say that we saw dozens of dead, that is because I can’t [say] how many exactly. We saw one dead man who was already in his seventies and one woman as old as that,” said Dreyer.
“We found a shallow grave with a man whose arms were tied behind his back and he was also shot in the head. In the centre of Knin, we found one or two bodies, but we saw more killed in the suburbs – men and women of different ages who weren’t in military clothes.”
While the prosecution does not dispute Croatia’s right to reclaim Krajina region as part of its national territory, it condemns the methods that were used.
The three former senior officers are accused of presiding over “deportation and forcible transfer, destruction and burning of Serb homes and businesses, plunder and looting of public or private Serb property; murder [and] other inhumane acts”.
Prosecutor Alan Tieger told the court at the beginning of the trial that the Croatian army used excessive shelling to “demoralise civilians and get them to flee”, leaving behind a “scarred wasteland”.
Mira Grubor, a hospital worker who now lives in New Zealand, said in testimony this week that 120 dead and 180 wounded people were brought to the hospital in Knin where she was working on the first day of Operation Storm.
“Up to a third were wearing civilian clothes. All of them were victims of shelling,” she said.
Grubor said most of the people in Knin at the time of the Croatian attack were civilians, not combatants.
“Only people who lived there [in Knin] remained. There were no military targets, as most of the military men had gone to Bosnia,” she said. However, she later admitted that “every house was armed during the war”.
To rebuff these claims, the defence produced a Croatian interior ministry document that listed only 16 bodies present in the morgue on August 5.
Although Grubor said she didn’t go to the morgue in person, she remained adamant she had heard from colleagues that there were more than 100 bodies there.
The defence then argued that the reason Grubor saw such a large number of wounded because the hospital was the only medical facility in the area with an operating theatre, so all the wounded from the surrounding region were transferred there.
During her testimony, Grubor said that when the Croatian army took the city, the first soldiers who entered the hospital were polite. However, she later heard others shooting and yelling.
She said she fled to the UN base where she spoke to officers in a bid “to force them to go to hospital and save [the] patients”.
However, the defence showed video footage of the Knin hospital with no signs of damage. The film also showed that the new hospital administration established on August 6 took on Serb doctors and also continued to treat Serb patients who had not been evacuated to the base.
Additional footage showed surgeon Igor Torbica praising the behaviour of the Croatian soldiers who first entered the hospital. “I wish I knew their names,” he said.
A third witness, Tor Munkelien, who was a UN observer in the area in August 1995, testified that he investigated shell damage in the area ten days after Operation Storm.
He said the first thing he did when he arrived in Knin was to analyse six shell craters in a residential neighborhood 350-500 metres away from the military barracks. A preliminary UN report concluded that the shelling was concentrated on military targets. But Munkelien said it later appeared that the bombardment had caused more damage than was initially reported.
Munkelian said he did not think that the looting and burning of abandoned Serb houses was ordered from above, but rather that the Croatian soldiers engaged in this on their own initiative.
“Most of the looters were in military clothes, but… they were driving civilian vehicles,” he said.
However, he added that the Croatian authorities could easily have prevented this disorder “if they had wanted to”.
The defence argued it was impossible to have complete control over everything that was happening in a large area.
But Munkelien replied that the authorities need only have controlled the roads, because the looters “weren’t on foot”.
The trial continues next week.
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
18 April 2008
Witnesses told the Hague war crimes tribunal this week that they saw dozens of dead bodies, many of them civilians, during a Croatian army offensive to retake Serb-held territory in 1995.
They were testifying at the trial of three Croatian generals accused of responsibility for crimes committed by troops under their command in the south-east Krajina region.
Prosecutors say Ante Gotovina, the most senior Croatian to be brought before the tribunal, was in command of Operation Storm, which took place from August 4 to 8, 1995, in the course of which at least 350 Serb civilians were killed and 200,000 were forced to flee.
Gotovina is charged, along with Ivan Cermak and Mladen Markac, with orchestrating the permanent removal of Serbs from Croatia between July and September 1995. Rebel Serbs, heavily aided by the then Yugoslav president Slobodan Milosevic, had held some 25 per cent of Croatia’s territory since 1991.
At the beginning of the trial, the prosecution argued that Operation Storm was part of a joint criminal enterprise led by the late Croatian president Franjo Tudjman with the intention of expelling Serbs from the region.
This week, the defence argued that local Serb political and military leaders had planned a mass departure in the event of a Croatian army offensive – the implication being that the exodus was a premeditated strategy on the part of the Serbs.
Prosecution witness Andries Dreyer, a former security coordinator at the United Nations base in Knin, the regional centre of Krajina, described seeing several the dead bodies of men and women who had been killed at close range, at the time relevant to the indictment.
“If I say that we saw dozens of dead, that is because I can’t [say] how many exactly. We saw one dead man who was already in his seventies and one woman as old as that,” said Dreyer.
“We found a shallow grave with a man whose arms were tied behind his back and he was also shot in the head. In the centre of Knin, we found one or two bodies, but we saw more killed in the suburbs – men and women of different ages who weren’t in military clothes.”
While the prosecution does not dispute Croatia’s right to reclaim Krajina region as part of its national territory, it condemns the methods that were used.
The three former senior officers are accused of presiding over “deportation and forcible transfer, destruction and burning of Serb homes and businesses, plunder and looting of public or private Serb property; murder [and] other inhumane acts”.
Prosecutor Alan Tieger told the court at the beginning of the trial that the Croatian army used excessive shelling to “demoralise civilians and get them to flee”, leaving behind a “scarred wasteland”.
Mira Grubor, a hospital worker who now lives in New Zealand, said in testimony this week that 120 dead and 180 wounded people were brought to the hospital in Knin where she was working on the first day of Operation Storm.
“Up to a third were wearing civilian clothes. All of them were victims of shelling,” she said.
Grubor said most of the people in Knin at the time of the Croatian attack were civilians, not combatants.
“Only people who lived there [in Knin] remained. There were no military targets, as most of the military men had gone to Bosnia,” she said. However, she later admitted that “every house was armed during the war”.
To rebuff these claims, the defence produced a Croatian interior ministry document that listed only 16 bodies present in the morgue on August 5.
Although Grubor said she didn’t go to the morgue in person, she remained adamant she had heard from colleagues that there were more than 100 bodies there.
The defence then argued that the reason Grubor saw such a large number of wounded because the hospital was the only medical facility in the area with an operating theatre, so all the wounded from the surrounding region were transferred there.
During her testimony, Grubor said that when the Croatian army took the city, the first soldiers who entered the hospital were polite. However, she later heard others shooting and yelling.
She said she fled to the UN base where she spoke to officers in a bid “to force them to go to hospital and save [the] patients”.
However, the defence showed video footage of the Knin hospital with no signs of damage. The film also showed that the new hospital administration established on August 6 took on Serb doctors and also continued to treat Serb patients who had not been evacuated to the base.
Additional footage showed surgeon Igor Torbica praising the behaviour of the Croatian soldiers who first entered the hospital. “I wish I knew their names,” he said.
A third witness, Tor Munkelien, who was a UN observer in the area in August 1995, testified that he investigated shell damage in the area ten days after Operation Storm.
He said the first thing he did when he arrived in Knin was to analyse six shell craters in a residential neighborhood 350-500 metres away from the military barracks. A preliminary UN report concluded that the shelling was concentrated on military targets. But Munkelien said it later appeared that the bombardment had caused more damage than was initially reported.
Munkelian said he did not think that the looting and burning of abandoned Serb houses was ordered from above, but rather that the Croatian soldiers engaged in this on their own initiative.
“Most of the looters were in military clothes, but… they were driving civilian vehicles,” he said.
However, he added that the Croatian authorities could easily have prevented this disorder “if they had wanted to”.
The defence argued it was impossible to have complete control over everything that was happening in a large area.
But Munkelien replied that the authorities need only have controlled the roads, because the looters “weren’t on foot”.
The trial continues next week.
Del Ponte Banned From Promoting Book.
By Nedim Sarac in Geneva
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
18 April 2008
The Swiss foreign ministry has banned Carla Del Ponte from promoting her account of her time as a war crimes prosecutor, saying the book does not befit her new role as an ambassador.
“The Hunt: War Criminals and Me”, published in Italian, reveals details about Del Ponte’s eight years as chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, before she stepped down this January to become Switzerland’s ambassador to Argentina.
“Carla Del Ponte’s book… contains statements which are not permissible for a representative of the Swiss government,” said foreign ministry spokesman Jean-Philippe Jeannerat in a statement issued last week. “Any public presentation of this work is incompatible with the author’s status as a Swiss ambassador.”
The foreign ministry of the neutral state has asked Del Ponte to return to Buenos Aires before a scheduled presentation of her book takes place in Milan.
Geri Mueller, who chairs the foreign affairs committee of both houses of parliament, said he hoped Del Ponte would resign from her ambassadorship.
“If she does not do so on her own, then, in my opinion, the Swiss parliament’s foreign affairs committee must consider and decide the matter. I would like to see Del Ponte recalled from her post in Argentina,” Mueller was quoted as saying by the Russian news agency Regnum.
The Swiss media are rife with speculation about which parts of the book have worried government officials most.
“‘The Hunt’ does not have mercy on any of the protagonists of the ex-Yugoslav conflicts; its vocabulary is devoid of any diplomacy. Serbs and Croats are called ‘sons of bitches’ for their failure to collaborate with the tribunal. Other charges are much more serious,” said the Geneva-based newspaper Le Matin.
Le Matin said allegations that Kosovo Albanian guerrillas transported hundreds of Serbian prisoners to northern Albania, killed them and “harvested” their organs for sale were especially problematic for the Swiss government.
Britain’s Guardian newspaper focused on the same episode.
“In the book, Del Ponte writes that her investigators visited a house in the remote mountainous region outside Burrel, Albania, which was allegedly being used as an impromptu clinic for the butchering of 300 young Serbs captured by the Kosovo Liberation Army,” said a report by Ian Traynor, from April 12.
The tribunal’s spokesperson Nerma Jelacic addressed these allegations at a press conference held this week in The Hague.
She said the tribunal “is aware of very serious allegations of human organ trafficking raised by the former prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, in a book recently published in Italian under her name”.
She noted that “no evidence in support of such allegations was ever brought before the tribunal’s judges”.
Some observers believe the Swiss government is particularly uncomfortable about Kosovo-related claims in Del Ponte’s book because it has officially recognised the province’s independence. Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey recently attended the opening of a Swiss embassy in Pristina.
Serbian officials have already tried to block the book’s publication, saying it contains information that could jeopardise efforts to bring four war crimes fugitives to justice, including former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his army chief, Ratko Mladic.
On the other hand, the book makes unpleasant reading for Belgrade because it underlines its failure to arrest the fugitives.
In her book, Del Ponte accuses western powers of obstructing the arrests of war crimes fugitives and of operating double standards.
According to Le Matin, Del Ponte recalled having several heated discussions with senior western officials who were supposed to be her allies. For example, she wrote that the then CIA director George Tenet dismissed her requests for more support in her efforts to arrest the fugitives, saying he didn’t care about her opinion.
De Ponte has said her book, written together with New York Times reporter Chuck Sudetic, is simply an account of her time with the tribunal.
“The message that I wanted to get across in this book is [that I have] great faith in international justice,” Del Ponte was quoted as saying by Swiss media a few days before the foreign ministry stopped her from plugging the book.
“It is possible to obtain justice for the thousands of victims of these criminals despite all the difficulties that obstruct the path to justice,” she concluded.
Further controversy is expected when the book is published in English and in Balkan languages.
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
18 April 2008
The Swiss foreign ministry has banned Carla Del Ponte from promoting her account of her time as a war crimes prosecutor, saying the book does not befit her new role as an ambassador.
“The Hunt: War Criminals and Me”, published in Italian, reveals details about Del Ponte’s eight years as chief prosecutor at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, before she stepped down this January to become Switzerland’s ambassador to Argentina.
“Carla Del Ponte’s book… contains statements which are not permissible for a representative of the Swiss government,” said foreign ministry spokesman Jean-Philippe Jeannerat in a statement issued last week. “Any public presentation of this work is incompatible with the author’s status as a Swiss ambassador.”
The foreign ministry of the neutral state has asked Del Ponte to return to Buenos Aires before a scheduled presentation of her book takes place in Milan.
Geri Mueller, who chairs the foreign affairs committee of both houses of parliament, said he hoped Del Ponte would resign from her ambassadorship.
“If she does not do so on her own, then, in my opinion, the Swiss parliament’s foreign affairs committee must consider and decide the matter. I would like to see Del Ponte recalled from her post in Argentina,” Mueller was quoted as saying by the Russian news agency Regnum.
The Swiss media are rife with speculation about which parts of the book have worried government officials most.
“‘The Hunt’ does not have mercy on any of the protagonists of the ex-Yugoslav conflicts; its vocabulary is devoid of any diplomacy. Serbs and Croats are called ‘sons of bitches’ for their failure to collaborate with the tribunal. Other charges are much more serious,” said the Geneva-based newspaper Le Matin.
Le Matin said allegations that Kosovo Albanian guerrillas transported hundreds of Serbian prisoners to northern Albania, killed them and “harvested” their organs for sale were especially problematic for the Swiss government.
Britain’s Guardian newspaper focused on the same episode.
“In the book, Del Ponte writes that her investigators visited a house in the remote mountainous region outside Burrel, Albania, which was allegedly being used as an impromptu clinic for the butchering of 300 young Serbs captured by the Kosovo Liberation Army,” said a report by Ian Traynor, from April 12.
The tribunal’s spokesperson Nerma Jelacic addressed these allegations at a press conference held this week in The Hague.
She said the tribunal “is aware of very serious allegations of human organ trafficking raised by the former prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, in a book recently published in Italian under her name”.
She noted that “no evidence in support of such allegations was ever brought before the tribunal’s judges”.
Some observers believe the Swiss government is particularly uncomfortable about Kosovo-related claims in Del Ponte’s book because it has officially recognised the province’s independence. Foreign Minister Micheline Calmy-Rey recently attended the opening of a Swiss embassy in Pristina.
Serbian officials have already tried to block the book’s publication, saying it contains information that could jeopardise efforts to bring four war crimes fugitives to justice, including former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his army chief, Ratko Mladic.
On the other hand, the book makes unpleasant reading for Belgrade because it underlines its failure to arrest the fugitives.
In her book, Del Ponte accuses western powers of obstructing the arrests of war crimes fugitives and of operating double standards.
According to Le Matin, Del Ponte recalled having several heated discussions with senior western officials who were supposed to be her allies. For example, she wrote that the then CIA director George Tenet dismissed her requests for more support in her efforts to arrest the fugitives, saying he didn’t care about her opinion.
De Ponte has said her book, written together with New York Times reporter Chuck Sudetic, is simply an account of her time with the tribunal.
“The message that I wanted to get across in this book is [that I have] great faith in international justice,” Del Ponte was quoted as saying by Swiss media a few days before the foreign ministry stopped her from plugging the book.
“It is possible to obtain justice for the thousands of victims of these criminals despite all the difficulties that obstruct the path to justice,” she concluded.
Further controversy is expected when the book is published in English and in Balkan languages.
US May Post Marines in Taiwan.
Military.com
19 April 2008
The United States may post Marines at its unofficial embassy in Taiwan - a small but symbolically significant change in its delicate political relationship with the self-ruled island.
A State Department advertisement in the English-language Taipei Times newspaper called for contractors to construct quarters for Marine security guards at a new U.S. compound in the capital Taipei.
Since the U.S. switched its recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, there have been no marine guards at its Taipei facility - the American Institute in Taiwan - in keeping with its deliberately low political profile.
It is customary for the U.S. to put marine guards in its embassies and consulates worldwide.
Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949. China continues to claim the island as its territory, and threatens to attack Taiwan if it seeks to make the break permanent.
Placing the guards at AIT - the de facto American Embassy on the island - would constitute another in a series of gradual steps in upgrading its status.
Staffers were originally required to severe their relations with the State Department and other U.S. government agencies before going to work at the facility. That requirement has since been dropped.
In 2005 the U.S. began placing military attaches there, though to keep their profile low, they were not allowed to wear uniforms.
An AIT spokesman had no immediate comment on the possible dispatch of the Marines to Taipei.
Alexander Huang of Taipei's Tamkang University said if it goes through, sending the Marines would signify an improvement in bilateral relations.
"With the Marine guards in place, the U.S. would be treating its Taipei facility just like its other embassies and consulates despite the lack of diplomatic relations," Huang said.
The new U.S. compound in Taipei is a part of a large-scale State Department overseas construction program. The facility, to be built in the city's Neihu district, will replace an aging downtown compound.
Despite its lack of diplomatic relations with Taiwan, Washington maintains a robust defense relationship with the island, selling it billions of dollars (euros) of arms annually, often to the ire of Beijing.
19 April 2008
The United States may post Marines at its unofficial embassy in Taiwan - a small but symbolically significant change in its delicate political relationship with the self-ruled island.
A State Department advertisement in the English-language Taipei Times newspaper called for contractors to construct quarters for Marine security guards at a new U.S. compound in the capital Taipei.
Since the U.S. switched its recognition from Taipei to Beijing in 1979, there have been no marine guards at its Taipei facility - the American Institute in Taiwan - in keeping with its deliberately low political profile.
It is customary for the U.S. to put marine guards in its embassies and consulates worldwide.
Taiwan and China split amid civil war in 1949. China continues to claim the island as its territory, and threatens to attack Taiwan if it seeks to make the break permanent.
Placing the guards at AIT - the de facto American Embassy on the island - would constitute another in a series of gradual steps in upgrading its status.
Staffers were originally required to severe their relations with the State Department and other U.S. government agencies before going to work at the facility. That requirement has since been dropped.
In 2005 the U.S. began placing military attaches there, though to keep their profile low, they were not allowed to wear uniforms.
An AIT spokesman had no immediate comment on the possible dispatch of the Marines to Taipei.
Alexander Huang of Taipei's Tamkang University said if it goes through, sending the Marines would signify an improvement in bilateral relations.
"With the Marine guards in place, the U.S. would be treating its Taipei facility just like its other embassies and consulates despite the lack of diplomatic relations," Huang said.
The new U.S. compound in Taipei is a part of a large-scale State Department overseas construction program. The facility, to be built in the city's Neihu district, will replace an aging downtown compound.
Despite its lack of diplomatic relations with Taiwan, Washington maintains a robust defense relationship with the island, selling it billions of dollars (euros) of arms annually, often to the ire of Beijing.
U.S. Military Seeks to Widen Pakistan Raids.
New York Times
20 April 2008
By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT
American commanders in Afghanistan have in recent months urged a widening of the war that could include American attacks on indigenous Pakistani militants in the tribal areas inside Pakistan, according to United States officials.
The requests have been rebuffed for now, the officials said, after deliberations in Washington among senior Bush administration officials who fear that attacking Pakistani radicals may anger Pakistan’s new government, which is negotiating with the militants, and destabilize an already fragile security situation.
American commanders would prefer that Pakistani forces attack the militants, but Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas have slowed recently to avoid upsetting the negotiations.
Pakistan’s government has given the Central Intelligence Agency limited authority to kill Arab and other foreign operatives in the tribal areas, using remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But administration officials say the Pakistani government has put far greater restrictions on American operations against indigenous Pakistani militant groups, including one thought to have been behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
American intelligence officials say that the threat emanating from Pakistan’s tribal areas is growing, and that Pakistani networks there have taken on an increasingly important role as an ally of Al Qaeda in plotting attacks against American and other allied troops in Afghanistan, and in helping foreign operatives plan attacks on targets in the West. The officials said the American military’s proposals included options for limited cross-border artillery strikes into Pakistan, missile attacks by Predator aircraft or raids by small teams of C.I.A. paramilitary forces or Special Operations forces.
In recent months, the American military officials in Afghanistan who are urging attacks in Pakistan discussed a list of potential targets with the United States ambassador in Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson, officials said.
The requests by the American commanders for attacks on targets in Pakistan were described by officials who had been briefed on the discussions but who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions involved possible future operations.
The discussions are the latest example of a recurring problem for the White House: that the place where the terrorist threat is most acute is the place where American forces are most restricted from acting.
Officials involved in the debate said that the question of attacking Pakistani militants was especially delicate because some militant leaders were believed to still be on the payroll of Pakistan’s intelligence service, called the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or another part of Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus. Among the groups thought to be targets was one commanded by Sirajuddin Haqqani, son of the legendary militant leader Jalaluddin Haqqani, as well as the network led by Baitullah Mehsud that is believed to have been behind Ms. Bhutto’s death.
For years the intelligence services have relied on a web of sources among Pakistani militant groups to collect information on foreign groups like Al Qaeda that have operated in the tribal areas.
A Pentagon adviser said military intelligence officers in Afghanistan had drawn up the detailed list of potential targets that was discussed with Ambassador Patterson. It is unclear which senior officials in Washington were involved in the debate over whether to authorize attacks.
One administration official said the internal discussions in Washington involved President Bush’s top national security aides, and took place earlier this year.
Military and intelligence officials say Al Qaeda and its affiliates now have a haven to plan attacks, just as they used camps in Afghanistan before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, said last month that the security situation along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border “presents clear and present danger to Afghanistan, to Pakistan and to the West in general, and to the United States in particular.”
American officials involved in the discussions said that they had not ruled out striking Pakistani militants in the tribal areas. American forces in Afghanistan are authorized to attack targets in Pakistan in self-defense or if they are in “hot pursuit” of militants fleeing back to havens across the border.
American-led forces in Afghanistan fired artillery at what they suspected was a Haqqani network safe house on March 12 that an American spokesman said posed an “imminent threat.” But the Pakistani Army said the strike killed only civilians.
Administration officials say the risk of angering the new government in Pakistan and stirring increased anti-American sentiment in the tribal areas outweighs the benefits of dismantling militant networks in the region.
“It’s certainly something we want to get to, but not yet,” said one Bush administration official. “If you do it now, you can expect to do it without Pakistani approval, and you can expect to do it only once because the Pakistanis will never help us again.”
Spokesmen for the White House and State Department declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for Ambassador Patterson in Pakistan.
Intelligence officials say they believe that leaders of the Pakistani Taliban and other militant groups have in recent months forged closer ties to the cadre of Qaeda leaders in the tribal areas. Officials have said that they thought the leader of the Taliban there, Jalaluddin Haqqani, may have died last year. But Mr. Haqqani recently released a video denying those reports and made reference to a military attack in eastern Afghanistan that happened this March. Mr. Haqqani’s son, Sirajuddin, has also made aggressive efforts to recruit foreign fighters from the Persian Gulf and elsewhere in Central Asia.
“The relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda and other groups such as the Haqqani network, are stronger today than they were, and they’re primarily based on the Pakistani side of the border,” said Seth Jones, an analyst with the RAND Corporation, in Congressional testimony this month after his trip to Afghanistan.
The Haqqanis are suspected of organizing a suicide attack on March 3 that killed two American soldiers at an Afghan government office. Sirajuddin Haqqani is also suspected of orchestrating a suicide bomb attack in January at the Serena Hotel in Kabul that killed six people.
The discussions over how to combat Al Qaeda and Pakistani militant networks in the tribal areas have been going on for nearly two years, as American policy makers have weighed the growing militant threat in the border area against unilateral American action that could politically weaken President Pervez Musharraf, a close ally in the global counterterrorism campaign.
A few weeks after Ms. Bhutto’s assassination in December, two senior American intelligence officials reached a quiet understanding with Mr. Musharraf to intensify secret strikes against suspected terrorists by Predator aircraft launched in Pakistan.
American officials have expressed alarm that the leaders of Pakistan’s new coalition government, Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League (N), are negotiating with militants believed to be responsible for an increasing number of suicide attacks against the security forces and political figures.
The new government has signaled that in its relations with Washington, it wants to take a path more independent than the one followed by the previous government and to use military force in the tribal areas only as a last resort.
In Congressional testimony this month, a former top American commander in Afghanistan said the need for more action was urgent. “A senior member of the administration needs to go to Pakistan and take the intelligence we have on Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani network inside of Pakistan and lay it out for their most senior leadership,” said the retired commander, Lt. Gen. David W. Barno.
He said the American envoy should “show them exactly what we know about, what they don’t know about what’s going on in their tribal areas and say, this is not a tolerable situation for you nor for us.”
“And,” he added, “we need to sit down and think through what we can collectively do about this.”
Carlotta Gall contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.
20 April 2008
By MARK MAZZETTI and ERIC SCHMITT
American commanders in Afghanistan have in recent months urged a widening of the war that could include American attacks on indigenous Pakistani militants in the tribal areas inside Pakistan, according to United States officials.
The requests have been rebuffed for now, the officials said, after deliberations in Washington among senior Bush administration officials who fear that attacking Pakistani radicals may anger Pakistan’s new government, which is negotiating with the militants, and destabilize an already fragile security situation.
American commanders would prefer that Pakistani forces attack the militants, but Pakistani military operations in the tribal areas have slowed recently to avoid upsetting the negotiations.
Pakistan’s government has given the Central Intelligence Agency limited authority to kill Arab and other foreign operatives in the tribal areas, using remotely piloted Predator aircraft. But administration officials say the Pakistani government has put far greater restrictions on American operations against indigenous Pakistani militant groups, including one thought to have been behind the assassination of former Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto.
American intelligence officials say that the threat emanating from Pakistan’s tribal areas is growing, and that Pakistani networks there have taken on an increasingly important role as an ally of Al Qaeda in plotting attacks against American and other allied troops in Afghanistan, and in helping foreign operatives plan attacks on targets in the West. The officials said the American military’s proposals included options for limited cross-border artillery strikes into Pakistan, missile attacks by Predator aircraft or raids by small teams of C.I.A. paramilitary forces or Special Operations forces.
In recent months, the American military officials in Afghanistan who are urging attacks in Pakistan discussed a list of potential targets with the United States ambassador in Pakistan, Anne W. Patterson, officials said.
The requests by the American commanders for attacks on targets in Pakistan were described by officials who had been briefed on the discussions but who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the discussions involved possible future operations.
The discussions are the latest example of a recurring problem for the White House: that the place where the terrorist threat is most acute is the place where American forces are most restricted from acting.
Officials involved in the debate said that the question of attacking Pakistani militants was especially delicate because some militant leaders were believed to still be on the payroll of Pakistan’s intelligence service, called the Inter-Services Intelligence Directorate, or another part of Pakistan’s intelligence apparatus. Among the groups thought to be targets was one commanded by Sirajuddin Haqqani, son of the legendary militant leader Jalaluddin Haqqani, as well as the network led by Baitullah Mehsud that is believed to have been behind Ms. Bhutto’s death.
For years the intelligence services have relied on a web of sources among Pakistani militant groups to collect information on foreign groups like Al Qaeda that have operated in the tribal areas.
A Pentagon adviser said military intelligence officers in Afghanistan had drawn up the detailed list of potential targets that was discussed with Ambassador Patterson. It is unclear which senior officials in Washington were involved in the debate over whether to authorize attacks.
One administration official said the internal discussions in Washington involved President Bush’s top national security aides, and took place earlier this year.
Military and intelligence officials say Al Qaeda and its affiliates now have a haven to plan attacks, just as they used camps in Afghanistan before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the C.I.A. director, said last month that the security situation along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border “presents clear and present danger to Afghanistan, to Pakistan and to the West in general, and to the United States in particular.”
American officials involved in the discussions said that they had not ruled out striking Pakistani militants in the tribal areas. American forces in Afghanistan are authorized to attack targets in Pakistan in self-defense or if they are in “hot pursuit” of militants fleeing back to havens across the border.
American-led forces in Afghanistan fired artillery at what they suspected was a Haqqani network safe house on March 12 that an American spokesman said posed an “imminent threat.” But the Pakistani Army said the strike killed only civilians.
Administration officials say the risk of angering the new government in Pakistan and stirring increased anti-American sentiment in the tribal areas outweighs the benefits of dismantling militant networks in the region.
“It’s certainly something we want to get to, but not yet,” said one Bush administration official. “If you do it now, you can expect to do it without Pakistani approval, and you can expect to do it only once because the Pakistanis will never help us again.”
Spokesmen for the White House and State Department declined to comment, as did a spokeswoman for Ambassador Patterson in Pakistan.
Intelligence officials say they believe that leaders of the Pakistani Taliban and other militant groups have in recent months forged closer ties to the cadre of Qaeda leaders in the tribal areas. Officials have said that they thought the leader of the Taliban there, Jalaluddin Haqqani, may have died last year. But Mr. Haqqani recently released a video denying those reports and made reference to a military attack in eastern Afghanistan that happened this March. Mr. Haqqani’s son, Sirajuddin, has also made aggressive efforts to recruit foreign fighters from the Persian Gulf and elsewhere in Central Asia.
“The relationship between the Taliban and Al Qaeda, and Al Qaeda and other groups such as the Haqqani network, are stronger today than they were, and they’re primarily based on the Pakistani side of the border,” said Seth Jones, an analyst with the RAND Corporation, in Congressional testimony this month after his trip to Afghanistan.
The Haqqanis are suspected of organizing a suicide attack on March 3 that killed two American soldiers at an Afghan government office. Sirajuddin Haqqani is also suspected of orchestrating a suicide bomb attack in January at the Serena Hotel in Kabul that killed six people.
The discussions over how to combat Al Qaeda and Pakistani militant networks in the tribal areas have been going on for nearly two years, as American policy makers have weighed the growing militant threat in the border area against unilateral American action that could politically weaken President Pervez Musharraf, a close ally in the global counterterrorism campaign.
A few weeks after Ms. Bhutto’s assassination in December, two senior American intelligence officials reached a quiet understanding with Mr. Musharraf to intensify secret strikes against suspected terrorists by Predator aircraft launched in Pakistan.
American officials have expressed alarm that the leaders of Pakistan’s new coalition government, Asif Ali Zardari of the Pakistan Peoples Party and Nawaz Sharif of the Pakistan Muslim League (N), are negotiating with militants believed to be responsible for an increasing number of suicide attacks against the security forces and political figures.
The new government has signaled that in its relations with Washington, it wants to take a path more independent than the one followed by the previous government and to use military force in the tribal areas only as a last resort.
In Congressional testimony this month, a former top American commander in Afghanistan said the need for more action was urgent. “A senior member of the administration needs to go to Pakistan and take the intelligence we have on Al Qaeda, the Taliban, the Haqqani network inside of Pakistan and lay it out for their most senior leadership,” said the retired commander, Lt. Gen. David W. Barno.
He said the American envoy should “show them exactly what we know about, what they don’t know about what’s going on in their tribal areas and say, this is not a tolerable situation for you nor for us.”
“And,” he added, “we need to sit down and think through what we can collectively do about this.”
Carlotta Gall contributed reporting from Kabul, Afghanistan.
Behind Military Analysts, the Pentagon’s Hidden Hand.
New York Times
20 April 2008
By DAVID BARSTOW
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.
“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.
Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.
As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.
“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”
The Pentagon defended its relationship with military analysts, saying they had been given only factual information about the war. “The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said.
It was, Mr. Whitman added, “a bit incredible” to think retired military officers could be “wound up” and turned into “puppets of the Defense Department.”
Many analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war. Several, like Jeffrey D. McCausland, a CBS military analyst and defense industry lobbyist, said they kept their networks informed of their outside work and recused themselves from coverage that touched on business interests.
“I’m not here representing the administration,” Dr. McCausland said.
Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said. And whatever the contributions of military analysts, they also noted the many network journalists who have covered the war for years in all its complexity.
Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.
These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.
Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”
Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.
“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”
Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”
The documents released by the Pentagon do not show any quid pro quo between commentary and contracts. But some analysts said they had used the special access as a marketing and networking opportunity or as a window into future business possibilities.
John C. Garrett is a retired Army colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News TV and radio. He is also a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq. In promotional materials, he states that as a military analyst he “is privy to weekly access and briefings with the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high level policy makers in the administration.” One client told investors that Mr. Garrett’s special access and decades of experience helped him “to know in advance — and in detail — how best to meet the needs” of the Defense Department and other agencies.
In interviews Mr. Garrett said there was an inevitable overlap between his dual roles. He said he had gotten “information you just otherwise would not get,” from the briefings and three Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq. He also acknowledged using this access and information to identify opportunities for clients. “You can’t help but look for that,” he said, adding, “If you know a capability that would fill a niche or need, you try to fill it. “That’s good for everybody.”
At the same time, in e-mail messages to the Pentagon, Mr. Garrett displayed an eagerness to be supportive with his television and radio commentary. “Please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay,” he wrote in January 2007, before President Bush went on TV to describe the surge strategy in Iraq.
Conversely, the administration has demonstrated that there is a price for sustained criticism, many analysts said. “You’ll lose all access,” Dr. McCausland said.
With a majority of Americans calling the war a mistake despite all administration attempts to sway public opinion, the Pentagon has focused in the last couple of years on cultivating in particular military analysts frequently seen and heard in conservative news outlets, records and interviews show.
Some of these analysts were on the mission to Cuba on June 24, 2005 — the first of six such Guantánamo trips — which was designed to mobilize analysts against the growing perception of Guantánamo as an international symbol of inhumane treatment. On the flight to Cuba, for much of the day at Guantánamo and on the flight home that night, Pentagon officials briefed the 10 or so analysts on their key messages — how much had been spent improving the facility, the abuse endured by guards, the extensive rights afforded detainees.
The results came quickly. The analysts went on TV and radio, decrying Amnesty International, criticizing calls to close the facility and asserting that all detainees were treated humanely.
“The impressions that you’re getting from the media and from the various pronouncements being made by people who have not been here in my opinion are totally false,” Donald W. Shepperd, a retired Air Force general, reported live on CNN by phone from Guantánamo that same afternoon.
The next morning, Montgomery Meigs, a retired Army general and NBC analyst, appeared on “Today.” “There’s been over $100 million of new construction,” he reported. “The place is very professionally run.”
Within days, transcripts of the analysts’ appearances were circulated to senior White House and Pentagon officials, cited as evidence of progress in the battle for hearts and minds at home.
Charting the Campaign
By early 2002, detailed planning for a possible Iraq invasion was under way, yet an obstacle loomed. Many Americans, polls showed, were uneasy about invading a country with no clear connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Pentagon and White House officials believed the military analysts could play a crucial role in helping overcome this resistance.
Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon’s dealings with the analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called “information dominance.” In a spin-saturated news culture, she argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent.
And so even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit “key influentials” — movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld’s priorities.
In the months after Sept. 11, as every network rushed to retain its own all-star squad of retired military officers, Ms. Clarke and her staff sensed a new opportunity. To Ms. Clarke’s team, the military analysts were the ultimate “key influential” — authoritative, most of them decorated war heroes, all reaching mass audiences.
The analysts, they noticed, often got more airtime than network reporters, and they were not merely explaining the capabilities of Apache helicopters. They were framing how viewers ought to interpret events. What is more, while the analysts were in the news media, they were not of the news media. They were military men, many of them ideologically in sync with the administration’s neoconservative brain trust, many of them important players in a military industry anticipating large budget increases to pay for an Iraq war.
Even analysts with no defense industry ties, and no fondness for the administration, were reluctant to be critical of military leaders, many of whom were friends. “It is very hard for me to criticize the United States Army,” said William L. Nash, a retired Army general and ABC analyst. “It is my life.”
Other administrations had made sporadic, small-scale attempts to build relationships with the occasional military analyst. But these were trifling compared with what Ms. Clarke’s team had in mind. Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary. “We didn’t want to rely on them to be our primary vehicle to get information out,” Mr. Meyer said.
The Pentagon’s regular press office would be kept separate from the military analysts. The analysts would instead be catered to by a small group of political appointees, with the point person being Brent T. Krueger, another senior aide to Ms. Clarke. The decision recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism. Federal agencies, for example, have paid columnists to write favorably about the administration. They have distributed to local TV stations hundreds of fake news segments with fawning accounts of administration accomplishments. The Pentagon itself has made covert payments to Iraqi newspapers to publish coalition propaganda.
Rather than complain about the “media filter,” each of these techniques simply converted the filter into an amplifier. This time, Mr. Krueger said, the military analysts would in effect be “writing the op-ed” for the war.
Assembling the Team
From the start, interviews show, the White House took a keen interest in which analysts had been identified by the Pentagon, requesting lists of potential recruits, and suggesting names. Ms. Clarke’s team wrote summaries describing their backgrounds, business affiliations and where they stood on the war.
“Rumsfeld ultimately cleared off on all invitees,” said Mr. Krueger, who left the Pentagon in 2004. (Through a spokesman, Mr. Rumsfeld declined to comment for this article.)
Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways — either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, Web sites and newspapers. At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.
The group was heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts. Several held senior positions with contractors that gave them direct responsibility for winning new Pentagon business. James Marks, a retired Army general and analyst for CNN from 2004 to 2007, pursued military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil Technologies. Still others held board positions with military firms that gave them responsibility for government business. General McInerney, the Fox analyst, for example, sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks.
Several were defense industry lobbyists, such as Dr. McCausland, who works at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, a major lobbying firm where he is director of a national security team that represents several military contractors. “We offer clients access to key decision makers,” Dr. McCausland’s team promised on the firm’s Web site.
Dr. McCausland was not the only analyst making this pledge. Another was Joseph W. Ralston, a retired Air Force general. Soon after signing on with CBS, General Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm headed by a former defense secretary, William Cohen, himself now a “world affairs” analyst for CNN. “The Cohen Group knows that getting to ‘yes’ in the aerospace and defense market — whether in the United States or abroad — requires that companies have a thorough, up-to-date understanding of the thinking of government decision makers,” the company tells prospective clients on its Web site.
There were also ideological ties.
Two of NBC’s most prominent analysts, Barry R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to help make the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. Both men also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors.
Many also shared with Mr. Bush’s national security team a belief that pessimistic war coverage broke the nation’s will to win in Vietnam, and there was a mutual resolve not to let that happen with this war.
This was a major theme, for example, with Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News analyst from 2001 to 2007. A retired Army general who had specialized in psychological warfare, Mr. Vallely co-authored a paper in 1980 that accused American news organizations of failing to defend the nation from “enemy” propaganda during Vietnam.
“We lost the war — not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped,” he wrote. He urged a radically new approach to psychological operations in future wars — taking aim at not just foreign adversaries but domestic audiences, too. He called his approach “MindWar” — using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.”
The Selling of the War
From their earliest sessions with the military analysts, Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides spoke as if they were all part of the same team.
In interviews, participants described a powerfully seductive environment — the uniformed escorts to Mr. Rumsfeld’s private conference room, the best government china laid out, the embossed name cards, the blizzard of PowerPoints, the solicitations of advice and counsel, the appeals to duty and country, the warm thank you notes from the secretary himself.
“Oh, you have no idea,” Mr. Allard said, describing the effect. “You’re back. They listen to you. They listen to what you say on TV.” It was, he said, “psyops on steroids” — a nuanced exercise in influence through flattery and proximity. “It’s not like it’s, ‘We’ll pay you $500 to get our story out,’ ” he said. “It’s more subtle.”
The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.
In the fall and winter leading up to the invasion, the Pentagon armed its analysts with talking points portraying Iraq as an urgent threat. The basic case became a familiar mantra: Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, was developing nuclear weapons, and might one day slip some to Al Qaeda; an invasion would be a relatively quick and inexpensive “war of liberation.”
At the Pentagon, members of Ms. Clarke’s staff marveled at the way the analysts seamlessly incorporated material from talking points and briefings as if it was their own.
“You could see that they were messaging,” Mr. Krueger said. “You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over.” Some days, he added, “We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’ ”
On April 12, 2003, with major combat almost over, Mr. Rumsfeld drafted a memorandum to Ms. Clarke. “Let’s think about having some of the folks who did such a good job as talking heads in after this thing is over,” he wrote.
By summer, though, the first signs of the insurgency had emerged. Reports from journalists based in Baghdad were increasingly suffused with the imagery of mayhem.
The Pentagon did not have to search far for a counterweight.
It was time, an internal Pentagon strategy memorandum urged, to “re-energize surrogates and message-force multipliers,” starting with the military analysts.
The memorandum led to a proposal to take analysts on a tour of Iraq in September 2003, timed to help overcome the sticker shock from Mr. Bush’s request for $87 billion in emergency war financing.
The group included four analysts from Fox News, one each from CNN and ABC, and several research-group luminaries whose opinion articles appear regularly in the nation’s op-ed pages.
The trip invitation promised a look at “the real situation on the ground in Iraq.”
The situation, as described in scores of books, was deteriorating. L. Paul Bremer III, then the American viceroy in Iraq, wrote in his memoir, “My Year in Iraq,” that he had privately warned the White House that the United States had “about half the number of soldiers we needed here.”
“We’re up against a growing and sophisticated threat,” Mr. Bremer recalled telling the president during a private White House dinner.
That dinner took place on Sept. 24, while the analysts were touring Iraq.
Yet these harsh realities were elided, or flatly contradicted, during the official presentations for the analysts, records show. The itinerary, scripted to the minute, featured brief visits to a model school, a few refurbished government buildings, a center for women’s rights, a mass grave and even the gardens of Babylon.
Mostly the analysts attended briefings. These sessions, records show, spooled out an alternative narrative, depicting an Iraq bursting with political and economic energy, its security forces blossoming. On the crucial question of troop levels, the briefings echoed the White House line: No reinforcements were needed. The “growing and sophisticated threat” described by Mr. Bremer was instead depicted as degraded, isolated and on the run.
“We’re winning,” a briefing document proclaimed.
One trip participant, General Nash of ABC, said some briefings were so clearly “artificial” that he joked to another group member that they were on “the George Romney memorial trip to Iraq,” a reference to Mr. Romney’s infamous claim that American officials had “brainwashed” him into supporting the Vietnam War during a tour there in 1965, while he was governor of Michigan.
But if the trip pounded the message of progress, it also represented a business opportunity: direct access to the most senior civilian and military leaders in Iraq and Kuwait, including many with a say in how the president’s $87 billion would be spent. It also was a chance to gather inside information about the most pressing needs confronting the American mission: the acute shortages of “up-armored” Humvees; the billions to be spent building military bases; the urgent need for interpreters; and the ambitious plans to train Iraq’s security forces.
Information and access of this nature had undeniable value for trip participants like William V. Cowan and Carlton A. Sherwood.
Mr. Cowan, a Fox analyst and retired Marine colonel, was the chief executive of a new military firm, the wvc3 Group. Mr. Sherwood was its executive vice president. At the time, the company was seeking contracts worth tens of millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq. In addition, wvc3 Group had a written agreement to use its influence and connections to help tribal leaders in Al Anbar Province win reconstruction contracts from the coalition.
“Those sheiks wanted access to the C.P.A.,” Mr. Cowan recalled in an interview, referring to the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Mr. Cowan said he pleaded their cause during the trip. “I tried to push hard with some of Bremer’s people to engage these people of Al Anbar,” he said.
Back in Washington, Pentagon officials kept a nervous eye on how the trip translated on the airwaves. Uncomfortable facts had bubbled up during the trip. One briefer, for example, mentioned that the Army was resorting to packing inadequately armored Humvees with sandbags and Kevlar blankets. Descriptions of the Iraqi security forces were withering. “They can’t shoot, but then again, they don’t,” one officer told them, according to one participant’s notes.
“I saw immediately in 2003 that things were going south,” General Vallely, one of the Fox analysts on the trip, recalled in an interview with The Times.
The Pentagon, though, need not have worried.
“You can’t believe the progress,” General Vallely told Alan Colmes of Fox News upon his return. He predicted the insurgency would be “down to a few numbers” within months.
“We could not be more excited, more pleased,” Mr. Cowan told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. There was barely a word about armor shortages or corrupt Iraqi security forces. And on the key strategic question of the moment — whether to send more troops — the analysts were unanimous.
“I am so much against adding more troops,” General Shepperd said on CNN.
Access and Influence
Inside the Pentagon and at the White House, the trip was viewed as a masterpiece in the management of perceptions, not least because it gave fuel to complaints that “mainstream” journalists were ignoring the good news in Iraq.
“We’re hitting a home run on this trip,” a senior Pentagon official wrote in an e-mail message to Richard B. Myers and Peter Pace, then chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Its success only intensified the Pentagon’s campaign. The pace of briefings accelerated. More trips were organized. Eventually the effort involved officials from Washington to Baghdad to Kabul to Guantánamo and back to Tampa, Fla., the headquarters of United States Central Command.
The scale reflected strong support from the top. When officials in Iraq were slow to organize another trip for analysts, a Pentagon official fired off an e-mail message warning that the trips “have the highest levels of visibility” at the White House and urging them to get moving before Lawrence Di Rita, one of Mr. Rumsfeld’s closest aides, “picks up the phone and starts calling the 4-stars.”
Mr. Di Rita, no longer at the Defense Department, said in an interview that a “conscious decision” was made to rely on the military analysts to counteract “the increasingly negative view of the war” coming from journalists in Iraq. The analysts, he said, generally had “a more supportive view” of the administration and the war, and the combination of their TV platforms and military cachet made them ideal for rebutting critical coverage of issues like troop morale, treatment of detainees, inadequate equipment or poorly trained Iraqi security forces. “On those issues, they were more likely to be seen as credible spokesmen,” he said.
For analysts with military industry ties, the attention brought access to a widening circle of influential officials beyond the contacts they had accumulated over the course of their careers.
Charles T. Nash, a Fox military analyst and retired Navy captain, is a consultant who helps small companies break into the military market. Suddenly, he had entree to a host of senior military leaders, many of whom he had never met. It was, he said, like being embedded with the Pentagon leadership. “You start to recognize what’s most important to them,” he said, adding, “There’s nothing like seeing stuff firsthand.”
Some Pentagon officials said they were well aware that some analysts viewed their special access as a business advantage. “Of course we realized that,” Mr. Krueger said. “We weren’t naïve about that.”
They also understood the financial relationship between the networks and their analysts. Many analysts were being paid by the “hit,” the number of times they appeared on TV. The more an analyst could boast of fresh inside information from high-level Pentagon “sources,” the more hits he could expect. The more hits, the greater his potential influence in the military marketplace, where several analysts prominently advertised their network roles.
“They have taken lobbying and the search for contracts to a far higher level,” Mr. Krueger said. “This has been highly honed.”
Mr. Di Rita, though, said it never occurred to him that analysts might use their access to curry favor. Nor, he said, did the Pentagon try to exploit this dynamic. “That’s not something that ever crossed my mind,” he said. In any event, he argued, the analysts and the networks were the ones responsible for any ethical complications. “We assume they know where the lines are,” he said.
The analysts met personally with Mr. Rumsfeld at least 18 times, records show, but that was just the beginning. They had dozens more sessions with the most senior members of his brain trust and access to officials responsible for managing the billions being spent in Iraq. Other groups of “key influentials” had meetings, but not nearly as often as the analysts.
An internal memorandum in 2005 helped explain why. The memorandum, written by a Pentagon official who had accompanied analysts to Iraq, said that based on her observations during the trip, the analysts “are having a greater impact” on network coverage of the military. “They have now become the go-to guys not only on breaking stories, but they influence the views on issues,” she wrote.
Other branches of the administration also began to make use of the analysts. Mr. Gonzales, then the attorney general, met with them soon after news leaked that the government was wiretapping terrorism suspects in the United States without warrants, Pentagon records show. When David H. Petraeus was appointed the commanding general in Iraq in January 2007, one of his early acts was to meet with the analysts.
“We knew we had extraordinary access,” said Timur J. Eads, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Fox analyst who is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies, a fast-growing military contractor.
Like several other analysts, Mr. Eads said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that “some four-star could call up and say, ‘Kill that contract.’ ” For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. “I know a snow job when I see one,” he said. He did not share this on TV.
“Human nature,” he explained, though he noted other instances when he was critical.
Some analysts said that even before the war started, they privately had questions about the justification for the invasion, but were careful not to express them on air.
Mr. Bevelacqua, then a Fox analyst, was among those invited to a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons. He recalled asking the briefer whether the United States had “smoking gun” proof.
“ ‘We don’t have any hard evidence,’ ” Mr. Bevelacqua recalled the briefer replying. He said he and other analysts were alarmed by this concession. “We are looking at ourselves saying, ‘What are we doing?’ ”
Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling “very disappointed” after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being “manipulated” to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.
Mr. Bevelacqua and another Fox analyst, Mr. Cowan, had formed the wvc3 Group, and hoped to win military and national security contracts.
“There’s no way I was going to go down that road and get completely torn apart,” Mr. Bevelacqua said. “You’re talking about fighting a huge machine.”
Some e-mail messages between the Pentagon and the analysts reveal an implicit trade of privileged access for favorable coverage. Robert H. Scales Jr., a retired Army general and analyst for Fox News and National Public Radio whose consulting company advises several military firms on weapons and tactics used in Iraq, wanted the Pentagon to approve high-level briefings for him inside Iraq in 2006.
“Recall the stuff I did after my last visit,” he wrote. “I will do the same this time.”
Pentagon Keeps Tabs
As it happened, the analysts’ news media appearances were being closely monitored. The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana, circulation 20,000.
Omnitec evaluated their appearances using the same tools as corporate branding experts. One report, assessing the impact of several trips to Iraq in 2005, offered example after example of analysts echoing Pentagon themes on all the networks.
“Commentary from all three Iraq trips was extremely positive over all,” the report concluded.
In interviews, several analysts reacted with dismay when told they were described as reliable “surrogates” in Pentagon documents. And some asserted that their Pentagon sessions were, as David L. Grange, a retired Army general and CNN analyst put it, “just upfront information,” while others pointed out, accurately, that they did not always agree with the administration or each other. “None of us drink the Kool-Aid,” General Scales said.
Likewise, several also denied using their special access for business gain. “Not related at all,” General Shepperd said, pointing out that many in the Pentagon held CNN “in the lowest esteem.”
Still, even the mildest of criticism could draw a challenge. Several analysts told of fielding telephone calls from displeased defense officials only minutes after being on the air.
On Aug. 3, 2005, 14 marines died in Iraq. That day, Mr. Cowan, who said he had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the “twisted version of reality” being pushed on analysts in briefings, called the Pentagon to give “a heads-up” that some of his comments on Fox “may not all be friendly,” Pentagon records show. Mr. Rumsfeld’s senior aides quickly arranged a private briefing for him, yet when he told Bill O’Reilly that the United States was “not on a good glide path right now” in Iraq, the repercussions were swift.
Mr. Cowan said he was “precipitously fired from the analysts group” for this appearance. The Pentagon, he wrote in an e-mail message, “simply didn’t like the fact that I wasn’t carrying their water.” The next day James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, presided over another conference call with analysts. He urged them, a transcript shows, not to let the marines’ deaths further erode support for the war.
“The strategic target remains our population,” General Conway said. “We can lose people day in and day out, but they’re never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys can help us not let that happen.”
“General, I just made that point on the air,” an analyst replied.
“Let’s work it together, guys,” General Conway urged.
The Generals’ Revolt
The full dimensions of this mutual embrace were perhaps never clearer than in April 2006, after several of Mr. Rumsfeld’s former generals — none of them network military analysts — went public with devastating critiques of his wartime performance. Some called for his resignation.
On Friday, April 14, with what came to be called the “Generals’ Revolt” dominating headlines, Mr. Rumsfeld instructed aides to summon military analysts to a meeting with him early the next week, records show. When an aide urged a short delay to “give our big guys on the West Coast a little more time to buy a ticket and get here,” Mr. Rumsfeld’s office insisted that “the boss” wanted the meeting fast “for impact on the current story.”
That same day, Pentagon officials helped two Fox analysts, General McInerney and General Vallely, write an opinion article for The Wall Street Journal defending Mr. Rumsfeld.
“Starting to write it now,” General Vallely wrote to the Pentagon that afternoon. “Any input for the article,” he added a little later, “will be much appreciated.” Mr. Rumsfeld’s office quickly forwarded talking points and statistics to rebut the notion of a spreading revolt.
“Vallely is going to use the numbers,” a Pentagon official reported that afternoon.
The standard secrecy notwithstanding, plans for this session leaked, producing a front-page story in The Times that Sunday. In damage-control mode, Pentagon officials scrambled to present the meeting as routine and directed that communications with analysts be kept “very formal,” records show. “This is very, very sensitive now,” a Pentagon official warned subordinates.
On Tuesday, April 18, some 17 analysts assembled at the Pentagon with Mr. Rumsfeld and General Pace, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
A transcript of that session, never before disclosed, shows a shared determination to marginalize war critics and revive public support for the war.
“I’m an old intel guy,” said one analyst. (The transcript omits speakers’ names.) “And I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. That is Psyops. Now most people may hear that and they think, ‘Oh my God, they’re trying to brainwash.’ ”
“What are you, some kind of a nut?” Mr. Rumsfeld cut in, drawing laughter. “You don’t believe in the Constitution?”
There was little discussion about the actual criticism pouring forth from Mr. Rumsfeld’s former generals. Analysts argued that opposition to the war was rooted in perceptions fed by the news media, not reality. The administration’s overall war strategy, they counseled, was “brilliant” and “very successful.”
“Frankly,” one participant said, “from a military point of view, the penalty, 2,400 brave Americans whom we lost, 3,000 in an hour and 15 minutes, is relative.”
An analyst said at another point: “This is a wider war. And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.”
“Yeah,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, taking notes.
But winning or not, they bluntly warned, the administration was in grave political danger so long as most Americans viewed Iraq as a lost cause. “America hates a loser,” one analyst said.
Much of the session was devoted to ways that Mr. Rumsfeld could reverse the “political tide.” One analyst urged Mr. Rumsfeld to “just crush these people,” and assured him that “most of the gentlemen at the table” would enthusiastically support him if he did.
“You are the leader,” the analyst told Mr. Rumsfeld. “You are our guy.”
At another point, an analyst made a suggestion: “In one of your speeches you ought to say, ‘Everybody stop for a minute and imagine an Iraq ruled by Zarqawi.’ And then you just go down the list and say, ‘All right, we’ve got oil, money, sovereignty, access to the geographic center of gravity of the Middle East, blah, blah, blah.’ If you can just paint a mental picture for Joe America to say, ‘Oh my God, I can’t imagine a world like that.’ ”
Even as they assured Mr. Rumsfeld that they stood ready to help in this public relations offensive, the analysts sought guidance on what they should cite as the next “milestone” that would, as one analyst put it, “keep the American people focused on the idea that we’re moving forward to a positive end.” They placed particular emphasis on the growing confrontation with Iran.
“When you said ‘long war,’ you changed the psyche of the American people to expect this to be a generational event,” an analyst said. “And again, I’m not trying to tell you how to do your job...”
“Get in line,” Mr. Rumsfeld interjected.
The meeting ended and Mr. Rumsfeld, appearing pleased and relaxed, took the entire group into a small study and showed off treasured keepsakes from his life, several analysts recalled.
Soon after, analysts hit the airwaves. The Omnitec monitoring reports, circulated to more than 80 officials, confirmed that analysts repeated many of the Pentagon’s talking points: that Mr. Rumsfeld consulted “frequently and sufficiently” with his generals; that he was not “overly concerned” with the criticisms; that the meeting focused “on more important topics at hand,” including the next milestone in Iraq, the formation of a new government.
Days later, Mr. Rumsfeld wrote a memorandum distilling their collective guidance into bullet points. Two were underlined:
“Focus on the Global War on Terror — not simply Iraq. The wider war — the long war.”
“Link Iraq to Iran. Iran is the concern. If we fail in Iraq or Afghanistan, it will help Iran.”
But if Mr. Rumsfeld found the session instructive, at least one participant, General Nash, the ABC analyst, was repulsed.
“I walked away from that session having total disrespect for my fellow commentators, with perhaps one or two exceptions,” he said.
View From the Networks
Two weeks ago General Petraeus took time out from testifying before Congress about Iraq for a conference call with military analysts.
Mr. Garrett, the Fox analyst and Patton Boggs lobbyist, said he told General Petraeus during the call to “keep up the great work.”
“Hey,” Mr. Garrett said in an interview, “anything we can do to help.”
For the moment, though, because of heavy election coverage and general war fatigue, military analysts are not getting nearly as much TV time, and the networks have trimmed their rosters of analysts. The conference call with General Petraeus, for example, produced little in the way of immediate coverage.
Still, almost weekly the Pentagon continues to conduct briefings with selected military analysts. Many analysts said network officials were only dimly aware of these interactions. The networks, they said, have little grasp of how often they meet with senior officials, or what is discussed.
“I don’t think NBC was even aware we were participating,” said Rick Francona, a longtime military analyst for the network.
Some networks publish biographies on their Web sites that describe their analysts’ military backgrounds and, in some cases, give at least limited information about their business ties. But many analysts also said the networks asked few questions about their outside business interests, the nature of their work or the potential for that work to create conflicts of interest. “None of that ever happened,” said Mr. Allard, an NBC analyst until 2006.
“The worst conflict of interest was no interest.”
Mr. Allard and other analysts said their network handlers also raised no objections when the Defense Department began paying their commercial airfare for Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq — a clear ethical violation for most news organizations.
CBS News declined to comment on what it knew about its military analysts’ business affiliations or what steps it took to guard against potential conflicts.
NBC News also declined to discuss its procedures for hiring and monitoring military analysts. The network issued a short statement: “We have clear policies in place to assure that the people who appear on our air have been appropriately vetted and that nothing in their profile would lead to even a perception of a conflict of interest.”
Jeffrey W. Schneider, a spokesman for ABC, said that while the network’s military consultants were not held to the same ethical rules as its full-time journalists, they were expected to keep the network informed about any outside business entanglements. “We make it clear to them we expect them to keep us closely apprised,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Fox News said executives “refused to participate” in this article.
CNN requires its military analysts to disclose in writing all outside sources of income. But like the other networks, it does not provide its military analysts with the kind of written, specific ethical guidelines it gives its full-time employees for avoiding real or apparent conflicts of interest.
Yet even where controls exist, they have sometimes proven porous.
CNN, for example, said it was unaware for nearly three years that one of its main military analysts, General Marks, was deeply involved in the business of seeking government contracts, including contracts related to Iraq.
General Marks was hired by CNN in 2004, about the time he took a management position at McNeil Technologies, where his job was to pursue military and intelligence contracts. As required, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies. But the disclosure form did not require him to describe what his job entailed, and CNN acknowledges it failed to do additional vetting.
“We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have,” CNN said in a written statement.
In an interview, General Marks said it was no secret at CNN that his job at McNeil Technologies was about winning contracts. “I mean, that’s what McNeil does,” he said.
CNN, however, said it did not know the nature of McNeil’s military business or what General Marks did for the company. If he was bidding on Pentagon contracts, CNN said, that should have disqualified him from being a military analyst for the network. But in the summer and fall of 2006, even as he was regularly asked to comment on conditions in Iraq, General Marks was working intensively on bidding for a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq. In fact, General Marks was made president of the McNeil spin-off that won the huge contract in December 2006.
General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN. “I’ve got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest,” he said.
But CNN said it had no idea about his role in the contract until July 2007, when it reviewed his most recent disclosure form, submitted months earlier, and finally made inquiries about his new job.
“We saw the extent of his dealings and determined at that time we should end our relationship with him,” CNN said.
20 April 2008
By DAVID BARSTOW
In the summer of 2005, the Bush administration confronted a fresh wave of criticism over Guantánamo Bay. The detention center had just been branded “the gulag of our times” by Amnesty International, there were new allegations of abuse from United Nations human rights experts and calls were mounting for its closure.
The administration’s communications experts responded swiftly. Early one Friday morning, they put a group of retired military officers on one of the jets normally used by Vice President Dick Cheney and flew them to Cuba for a carefully orchestrated tour of Guantánamo.
To the public, these men are members of a familiar fraternity, presented tens of thousands of times on television and radio as “military analysts” whose long service has equipped them to give authoritative and unfettered judgments about the most pressing issues of the post-Sept. 11 world.
Hidden behind that appearance of objectivity, though, is a Pentagon information apparatus that has used those analysts in a campaign to generate favorable news coverage of the administration’s wartime performance, an examination by The New York Times has found.
The effort, which began with the buildup to the Iraq war and continues to this day, has sought to exploit ideological and military allegiances, and also a powerful financial dynamic: Most of the analysts have ties to military contractors vested in the very war policies they are asked to assess on air.
Those business relationships are hardly ever disclosed to the viewers, and sometimes not even to the networks themselves. But collectively, the men on the plane and several dozen other military analysts represent more than 150 military contractors either as lobbyists, senior executives, board members or consultants. The companies include defense heavyweights, but also scores of smaller companies, all part of a vast assemblage of contractors scrambling for hundreds of billions in military business generated by the administration’s war on terror. It is a furious competition, one in which inside information and easy access to senior officials are highly prized.
Records and interviews show how the Bush administration has used its control over access and information in an effort to transform the analysts into a kind of media Trojan horse — an instrument intended to shape terrorism coverage from inside the major TV and radio networks.
Analysts have been wooed in hundreds of private briefings with senior military leaders, including officials with significant influence over contracting and budget matters, records show. They have been taken on tours of Iraq and given access to classified intelligence. They have been briefed by officials from the White House, State Department and Justice Department, including Mr. Cheney, Alberto R. Gonzales and Stephen J. Hadley.
In turn, members of this group have echoed administration talking points, sometimes even when they suspected the information was false or inflated. Some analysts acknowledge they suppressed doubts because they feared jeopardizing their access.
A few expressed regret for participating in what they regarded as an effort to dupe the American public with propaganda dressed as independent military analysis.
“It was them saying, ‘We need to stick our hands up your back and move your mouth for you,’ ” Robert S. Bevelacqua, a retired Green Beret and former Fox News analyst, said.
Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said.
As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.
“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”
The Pentagon defended its relationship with military analysts, saying they had been given only factual information about the war. “The intent and purpose of this is nothing other than an earnest attempt to inform the American people,” Bryan Whitman, a Pentagon spokesman, said.
It was, Mr. Whitman added, “a bit incredible” to think retired military officers could be “wound up” and turned into “puppets of the Defense Department.”
Many analysts strongly denied that they had either been co-opted or had allowed outside business interests to affect their on-air comments, and some have used their platforms to criticize the conduct of the war. Several, like Jeffrey D. McCausland, a CBS military analyst and defense industry lobbyist, said they kept their networks informed of their outside work and recused themselves from coverage that touched on business interests.
“I’m not here representing the administration,” Dr. McCausland said.
Some network officials, meanwhile, acknowledged only a limited understanding of their analysts’ interactions with the administration. They said that while they were sensitive to potential conflicts of interest, they did not hold their analysts to the same ethical standards as their news employees regarding outside financial interests. The onus is on their analysts to disclose conflicts, they said. And whatever the contributions of military analysts, they also noted the many network journalists who have covered the war for years in all its complexity.
Five years into the Iraq war, most details of the architecture and execution of the Pentagon’s campaign have never been disclosed. But The Times successfully sued the Defense Department to gain access to 8,000 pages of e-mail messages, transcripts and records describing years of private briefings, trips to Iraq and Guantánamo and an extensive Pentagon talking points operation.
These records reveal a symbiotic relationship where the usual dividing lines between government and journalism have been obliterated.
Internal Pentagon documents repeatedly refer to the military analysts as “message force multipliers” or “surrogates” who could be counted on to deliver administration “themes and messages” to millions of Americans “in the form of their own opinions.”
Though many analysts are paid network consultants, making $500 to $1,000 per appearance, in Pentagon meetings they sometimes spoke as if they were operating behind enemy lines, interviews and transcripts show. Some offered the Pentagon tips on how to outmaneuver the networks, or as one analyst put it to Donald H. Rumsfeld, then the defense secretary, “the Chris Matthewses and the Wolf Blitzers of the world.” Some warned of planned stories or sent the Pentagon copies of their correspondence with network news executives. Many — although certainly not all — faithfully echoed talking points intended to counter critics.
“Good work,” Thomas G. McInerney, a retired Air Force general, consultant and Fox News analyst, wrote to the Pentagon after receiving fresh talking points in late 2006. “We will use it.”
Again and again, records show, the administration has enlisted analysts as a rapid reaction force to rebut what it viewed as critical news coverage, some of it by the networks’ own Pentagon correspondents. For example, when news articles revealed that troops in Iraq were dying because of inadequate body armor, a senior Pentagon official wrote to his colleagues: “I think our analysts — properly armed — can push back in that arena.”
The documents released by the Pentagon do not show any quid pro quo between commentary and contracts. But some analysts said they had used the special access as a marketing and networking opportunity or as a window into future business possibilities.
John C. Garrett is a retired Army colonel and unpaid analyst for Fox News TV and radio. He is also a lobbyist at Patton Boggs who helps firms win Pentagon contracts, including in Iraq. In promotional materials, he states that as a military analyst he “is privy to weekly access and briefings with the secretary of defense, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and other high level policy makers in the administration.” One client told investors that Mr. Garrett’s special access and decades of experience helped him “to know in advance — and in detail — how best to meet the needs” of the Defense Department and other agencies.
In interviews Mr. Garrett said there was an inevitable overlap between his dual roles. He said he had gotten “information you just otherwise would not get,” from the briefings and three Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq. He also acknowledged using this access and information to identify opportunities for clients. “You can’t help but look for that,” he said, adding, “If you know a capability that would fill a niche or need, you try to fill it. “That’s good for everybody.”
At the same time, in e-mail messages to the Pentagon, Mr. Garrett displayed an eagerness to be supportive with his television and radio commentary. “Please let me know if you have any specific points you want covered or that you would prefer to downplay,” he wrote in January 2007, before President Bush went on TV to describe the surge strategy in Iraq.
Conversely, the administration has demonstrated that there is a price for sustained criticism, many analysts said. “You’ll lose all access,” Dr. McCausland said.
With a majority of Americans calling the war a mistake despite all administration attempts to sway public opinion, the Pentagon has focused in the last couple of years on cultivating in particular military analysts frequently seen and heard in conservative news outlets, records and interviews show.
Some of these analysts were on the mission to Cuba on June 24, 2005 — the first of six such Guantánamo trips — which was designed to mobilize analysts against the growing perception of Guantánamo as an international symbol of inhumane treatment. On the flight to Cuba, for much of the day at Guantánamo and on the flight home that night, Pentagon officials briefed the 10 or so analysts on their key messages — how much had been spent improving the facility, the abuse endured by guards, the extensive rights afforded detainees.
The results came quickly. The analysts went on TV and radio, decrying Amnesty International, criticizing calls to close the facility and asserting that all detainees were treated humanely.
“The impressions that you’re getting from the media and from the various pronouncements being made by people who have not been here in my opinion are totally false,” Donald W. Shepperd, a retired Air Force general, reported live on CNN by phone from Guantánamo that same afternoon.
The next morning, Montgomery Meigs, a retired Army general and NBC analyst, appeared on “Today.” “There’s been over $100 million of new construction,” he reported. “The place is very professionally run.”
Within days, transcripts of the analysts’ appearances were circulated to senior White House and Pentagon officials, cited as evidence of progress in the battle for hearts and minds at home.
Charting the Campaign
By early 2002, detailed planning for a possible Iraq invasion was under way, yet an obstacle loomed. Many Americans, polls showed, were uneasy about invading a country with no clear connection to the Sept. 11 attacks. Pentagon and White House officials believed the military analysts could play a crucial role in helping overcome this resistance.
Torie Clarke, the former public relations executive who oversaw the Pentagon’s dealings with the analysts as assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, had come to her job with distinct ideas about achieving what she called “information dominance.” In a spin-saturated news culture, she argued, opinion is swayed most by voices perceived as authoritative and utterly independent.
And so even before Sept. 11, she built a system within the Pentagon to recruit “key influentials” — movers and shakers from all walks who with the proper ministrations might be counted on to generate support for Mr. Rumsfeld’s priorities.
In the months after Sept. 11, as every network rushed to retain its own all-star squad of retired military officers, Ms. Clarke and her staff sensed a new opportunity. To Ms. Clarke’s team, the military analysts were the ultimate “key influential” — authoritative, most of them decorated war heroes, all reaching mass audiences.
The analysts, they noticed, often got more airtime than network reporters, and they were not merely explaining the capabilities of Apache helicopters. They were framing how viewers ought to interpret events. What is more, while the analysts were in the news media, they were not of the news media. They were military men, many of them ideologically in sync with the administration’s neoconservative brain trust, many of them important players in a military industry anticipating large budget increases to pay for an Iraq war.
Even analysts with no defense industry ties, and no fondness for the administration, were reluctant to be critical of military leaders, many of whom were friends. “It is very hard for me to criticize the United States Army,” said William L. Nash, a retired Army general and ABC analyst. “It is my life.”
Other administrations had made sporadic, small-scale attempts to build relationships with the occasional military analyst. But these were trifling compared with what Ms. Clarke’s team had in mind. Don Meyer, an aide to Ms. Clarke, said a strategic decision was made in 2002 to make the analysts the main focus of the public relations push to construct a case for war. Journalists were secondary. “We didn’t want to rely on them to be our primary vehicle to get information out,” Mr. Meyer said.
The Pentagon’s regular press office would be kept separate from the military analysts. The analysts would instead be catered to by a small group of political appointees, with the point person being Brent T. Krueger, another senior aide to Ms. Clarke. The decision recalled other administration tactics that subverted traditional journalism. Federal agencies, for example, have paid columnists to write favorably about the administration. They have distributed to local TV stations hundreds of fake news segments with fawning accounts of administration accomplishments. The Pentagon itself has made covert payments to Iraqi newspapers to publish coalition propaganda.
Rather than complain about the “media filter,” each of these techniques simply converted the filter into an amplifier. This time, Mr. Krueger said, the military analysts would in effect be “writing the op-ed” for the war.
Assembling the Team
From the start, interviews show, the White House took a keen interest in which analysts had been identified by the Pentagon, requesting lists of potential recruits, and suggesting names. Ms. Clarke’s team wrote summaries describing their backgrounds, business affiliations and where they stood on the war.
“Rumsfeld ultimately cleared off on all invitees,” said Mr. Krueger, who left the Pentagon in 2004. (Through a spokesman, Mr. Rumsfeld declined to comment for this article.)
Over time, the Pentagon recruited more than 75 retired officers, although some participated only briefly or sporadically. The largest contingent was affiliated with Fox News, followed by NBC and CNN, the other networks with 24-hour cable outlets. But analysts from CBS and ABC were included, too. Some recruits, though not on any network payroll, were influential in other ways — either because they were sought out by radio hosts, or because they often published op-ed articles or were quoted in magazines, Web sites and newspapers. At least nine of them have written op-ed articles for The Times.
The group was heavily represented by men involved in the business of helping companies win military contracts. Several held senior positions with contractors that gave them direct responsibility for winning new Pentagon business. James Marks, a retired Army general and analyst for CNN from 2004 to 2007, pursued military and intelligence contracts as a senior executive with McNeil Technologies. Still others held board positions with military firms that gave them responsibility for government business. General McInerney, the Fox analyst, for example, sits on the boards of several military contractors, including Nortel Government Solutions, a supplier of communication networks.
Several were defense industry lobbyists, such as Dr. McCausland, who works at Buchanan Ingersoll & Rooney, a major lobbying firm where he is director of a national security team that represents several military contractors. “We offer clients access to key decision makers,” Dr. McCausland’s team promised on the firm’s Web site.
Dr. McCausland was not the only analyst making this pledge. Another was Joseph W. Ralston, a retired Air Force general. Soon after signing on with CBS, General Ralston was named vice chairman of the Cohen Group, a consulting firm headed by a former defense secretary, William Cohen, himself now a “world affairs” analyst for CNN. “The Cohen Group knows that getting to ‘yes’ in the aerospace and defense market — whether in the United States or abroad — requires that companies have a thorough, up-to-date understanding of the thinking of government decision makers,” the company tells prospective clients on its Web site.
There were also ideological ties.
Two of NBC’s most prominent analysts, Barry R. McCaffrey and the late Wayne A. Downing, were on the advisory board of the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, an advocacy group created with White House encouragement in 2002 to help make the case for ousting Saddam Hussein. Both men also had their own consulting firms and sat on the boards of major military contractors.
Many also shared with Mr. Bush’s national security team a belief that pessimistic war coverage broke the nation’s will to win in Vietnam, and there was a mutual resolve not to let that happen with this war.
This was a major theme, for example, with Paul E. Vallely, a Fox News analyst from 2001 to 2007. A retired Army general who had specialized in psychological warfare, Mr. Vallely co-authored a paper in 1980 that accused American news organizations of failing to defend the nation from “enemy” propaganda during Vietnam.
“We lost the war — not because we were outfought, but because we were out Psyoped,” he wrote. He urged a radically new approach to psychological operations in future wars — taking aim at not just foreign adversaries but domestic audiences, too. He called his approach “MindWar” — using network TV and radio to “strengthen our national will to victory.”
The Selling of the War
From their earliest sessions with the military analysts, Mr. Rumsfeld and his aides spoke as if they were all part of the same team.
In interviews, participants described a powerfully seductive environment — the uniformed escorts to Mr. Rumsfeld’s private conference room, the best government china laid out, the embossed name cards, the blizzard of PowerPoints, the solicitations of advice and counsel, the appeals to duty and country, the warm thank you notes from the secretary himself.
“Oh, you have no idea,” Mr. Allard said, describing the effect. “You’re back. They listen to you. They listen to what you say on TV.” It was, he said, “psyops on steroids” — a nuanced exercise in influence through flattery and proximity. “It’s not like it’s, ‘We’ll pay you $500 to get our story out,’ ” he said. “It’s more subtle.”
The access came with a condition. Participants were instructed not to quote their briefers directly or otherwise describe their contacts with the Pentagon.
In the fall and winter leading up to the invasion, the Pentagon armed its analysts with talking points portraying Iraq as an urgent threat. The basic case became a familiar mantra: Iraq possessed chemical and biological weapons, was developing nuclear weapons, and might one day slip some to Al Qaeda; an invasion would be a relatively quick and inexpensive “war of liberation.”
At the Pentagon, members of Ms. Clarke’s staff marveled at the way the analysts seamlessly incorporated material from talking points and briefings as if it was their own.
“You could see that they were messaging,” Mr. Krueger said. “You could see they were taking verbatim what the secretary was saying or what the technical specialists were saying. And they were saying it over and over and over.” Some days, he added, “We were able to click on every single station and every one of our folks were up there delivering our message. You’d look at them and say, ‘This is working.’ ”
On April 12, 2003, with major combat almost over, Mr. Rumsfeld drafted a memorandum to Ms. Clarke. “Let’s think about having some of the folks who did such a good job as talking heads in after this thing is over,” he wrote.
By summer, though, the first signs of the insurgency had emerged. Reports from journalists based in Baghdad were increasingly suffused with the imagery of mayhem.
The Pentagon did not have to search far for a counterweight.
It was time, an internal Pentagon strategy memorandum urged, to “re-energize surrogates and message-force multipliers,” starting with the military analysts.
The memorandum led to a proposal to take analysts on a tour of Iraq in September 2003, timed to help overcome the sticker shock from Mr. Bush’s request for $87 billion in emergency war financing.
The group included four analysts from Fox News, one each from CNN and ABC, and several research-group luminaries whose opinion articles appear regularly in the nation’s op-ed pages.
The trip invitation promised a look at “the real situation on the ground in Iraq.”
The situation, as described in scores of books, was deteriorating. L. Paul Bremer III, then the American viceroy in Iraq, wrote in his memoir, “My Year in Iraq,” that he had privately warned the White House that the United States had “about half the number of soldiers we needed here.”
“We’re up against a growing and sophisticated threat,” Mr. Bremer recalled telling the president during a private White House dinner.
That dinner took place on Sept. 24, while the analysts were touring Iraq.
Yet these harsh realities were elided, or flatly contradicted, during the official presentations for the analysts, records show. The itinerary, scripted to the minute, featured brief visits to a model school, a few refurbished government buildings, a center for women’s rights, a mass grave and even the gardens of Babylon.
Mostly the analysts attended briefings. These sessions, records show, spooled out an alternative narrative, depicting an Iraq bursting with political and economic energy, its security forces blossoming. On the crucial question of troop levels, the briefings echoed the White House line: No reinforcements were needed. The “growing and sophisticated threat” described by Mr. Bremer was instead depicted as degraded, isolated and on the run.
“We’re winning,” a briefing document proclaimed.
One trip participant, General Nash of ABC, said some briefings were so clearly “artificial” that he joked to another group member that they were on “the George Romney memorial trip to Iraq,” a reference to Mr. Romney’s infamous claim that American officials had “brainwashed” him into supporting the Vietnam War during a tour there in 1965, while he was governor of Michigan.
But if the trip pounded the message of progress, it also represented a business opportunity: direct access to the most senior civilian and military leaders in Iraq and Kuwait, including many with a say in how the president’s $87 billion would be spent. It also was a chance to gather inside information about the most pressing needs confronting the American mission: the acute shortages of “up-armored” Humvees; the billions to be spent building military bases; the urgent need for interpreters; and the ambitious plans to train Iraq’s security forces.
Information and access of this nature had undeniable value for trip participants like William V. Cowan and Carlton A. Sherwood.
Mr. Cowan, a Fox analyst and retired Marine colonel, was the chief executive of a new military firm, the wvc3 Group. Mr. Sherwood was its executive vice president. At the time, the company was seeking contracts worth tens of millions to supply body armor and counterintelligence services in Iraq. In addition, wvc3 Group had a written agreement to use its influence and connections to help tribal leaders in Al Anbar Province win reconstruction contracts from the coalition.
“Those sheiks wanted access to the C.P.A.,” Mr. Cowan recalled in an interview, referring to the Coalition Provisional Authority.
Mr. Cowan said he pleaded their cause during the trip. “I tried to push hard with some of Bremer’s people to engage these people of Al Anbar,” he said.
Back in Washington, Pentagon officials kept a nervous eye on how the trip translated on the airwaves. Uncomfortable facts had bubbled up during the trip. One briefer, for example, mentioned that the Army was resorting to packing inadequately armored Humvees with sandbags and Kevlar blankets. Descriptions of the Iraqi security forces were withering. “They can’t shoot, but then again, they don’t,” one officer told them, according to one participant’s notes.
“I saw immediately in 2003 that things were going south,” General Vallely, one of the Fox analysts on the trip, recalled in an interview with The Times.
The Pentagon, though, need not have worried.
“You can’t believe the progress,” General Vallely told Alan Colmes of Fox News upon his return. He predicted the insurgency would be “down to a few numbers” within months.
“We could not be more excited, more pleased,” Mr. Cowan told Greta Van Susteren of Fox News. There was barely a word about armor shortages or corrupt Iraqi security forces. And on the key strategic question of the moment — whether to send more troops — the analysts were unanimous.
“I am so much against adding more troops,” General Shepperd said on CNN.
Access and Influence
Inside the Pentagon and at the White House, the trip was viewed as a masterpiece in the management of perceptions, not least because it gave fuel to complaints that “mainstream” journalists were ignoring the good news in Iraq.
“We’re hitting a home run on this trip,” a senior Pentagon official wrote in an e-mail message to Richard B. Myers and Peter Pace, then chairman and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Its success only intensified the Pentagon’s campaign. The pace of briefings accelerated. More trips were organized. Eventually the effort involved officials from Washington to Baghdad to Kabul to Guantánamo and back to Tampa, Fla., the headquarters of United States Central Command.
The scale reflected strong support from the top. When officials in Iraq were slow to organize another trip for analysts, a Pentagon official fired off an e-mail message warning that the trips “have the highest levels of visibility” at the White House and urging them to get moving before Lawrence Di Rita, one of Mr. Rumsfeld’s closest aides, “picks up the phone and starts calling the 4-stars.”
Mr. Di Rita, no longer at the Defense Department, said in an interview that a “conscious decision” was made to rely on the military analysts to counteract “the increasingly negative view of the war” coming from journalists in Iraq. The analysts, he said, generally had “a more supportive view” of the administration and the war, and the combination of their TV platforms and military cachet made them ideal for rebutting critical coverage of issues like troop morale, treatment of detainees, inadequate equipment or poorly trained Iraqi security forces. “On those issues, they were more likely to be seen as credible spokesmen,” he said.
For analysts with military industry ties, the attention brought access to a widening circle of influential officials beyond the contacts they had accumulated over the course of their careers.
Charles T. Nash, a Fox military analyst and retired Navy captain, is a consultant who helps small companies break into the military market. Suddenly, he had entree to a host of senior military leaders, many of whom he had never met. It was, he said, like being embedded with the Pentagon leadership. “You start to recognize what’s most important to them,” he said, adding, “There’s nothing like seeing stuff firsthand.”
Some Pentagon officials said they were well aware that some analysts viewed their special access as a business advantage. “Of course we realized that,” Mr. Krueger said. “We weren’t naïve about that.”
They also understood the financial relationship between the networks and their analysts. Many analysts were being paid by the “hit,” the number of times they appeared on TV. The more an analyst could boast of fresh inside information from high-level Pentagon “sources,” the more hits he could expect. The more hits, the greater his potential influence in the military marketplace, where several analysts prominently advertised their network roles.
“They have taken lobbying and the search for contracts to a far higher level,” Mr. Krueger said. “This has been highly honed.”
Mr. Di Rita, though, said it never occurred to him that analysts might use their access to curry favor. Nor, he said, did the Pentagon try to exploit this dynamic. “That’s not something that ever crossed my mind,” he said. In any event, he argued, the analysts and the networks were the ones responsible for any ethical complications. “We assume they know where the lines are,” he said.
The analysts met personally with Mr. Rumsfeld at least 18 times, records show, but that was just the beginning. They had dozens more sessions with the most senior members of his brain trust and access to officials responsible for managing the billions being spent in Iraq. Other groups of “key influentials” had meetings, but not nearly as often as the analysts.
An internal memorandum in 2005 helped explain why. The memorandum, written by a Pentagon official who had accompanied analysts to Iraq, said that based on her observations during the trip, the analysts “are having a greater impact” on network coverage of the military. “They have now become the go-to guys not only on breaking stories, but they influence the views on issues,” she wrote.
Other branches of the administration also began to make use of the analysts. Mr. Gonzales, then the attorney general, met with them soon after news leaked that the government was wiretapping terrorism suspects in the United States without warrants, Pentagon records show. When David H. Petraeus was appointed the commanding general in Iraq in January 2007, one of his early acts was to meet with the analysts.
“We knew we had extraordinary access,” said Timur J. Eads, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and Fox analyst who is vice president of government relations for Blackbird Technologies, a fast-growing military contractor.
Like several other analysts, Mr. Eads said he had at times held his tongue on television for fear that “some four-star could call up and say, ‘Kill that contract.’ ” For example, he believed Pentagon officials misled the analysts about the progress of Iraq’s security forces. “I know a snow job when I see one,” he said. He did not share this on TV.
“Human nature,” he explained, though he noted other instances when he was critical.
Some analysts said that even before the war started, they privately had questions about the justification for the invasion, but were careful not to express them on air.
Mr. Bevelacqua, then a Fox analyst, was among those invited to a briefing in early 2003 about Iraq’s purported stockpiles of illicit weapons. He recalled asking the briefer whether the United States had “smoking gun” proof.
“ ‘We don’t have any hard evidence,’ ” Mr. Bevelacqua recalled the briefer replying. He said he and other analysts were alarmed by this concession. “We are looking at ourselves saying, ‘What are we doing?’ ”
Another analyst, Robert L. Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel who works in the Pentagon for a military contractor, attended the same briefing and recalled feeling “very disappointed” after being shown satellite photographs purporting to show bunkers associated with a hidden weapons program. Mr. Maginnis said he concluded that the analysts were being “manipulated” to convey a false sense of certainty about the evidence of the weapons. Yet he and Mr. Bevelacqua and the other analysts who attended the briefing did not share any misgivings with the American public.
Mr. Bevelacqua and another Fox analyst, Mr. Cowan, had formed the wvc3 Group, and hoped to win military and national security contracts.
“There’s no way I was going to go down that road and get completely torn apart,” Mr. Bevelacqua said. “You’re talking about fighting a huge machine.”
Some e-mail messages between the Pentagon and the analysts reveal an implicit trade of privileged access for favorable coverage. Robert H. Scales Jr., a retired Army general and analyst for Fox News and National Public Radio whose consulting company advises several military firms on weapons and tactics used in Iraq, wanted the Pentagon to approve high-level briefings for him inside Iraq in 2006.
“Recall the stuff I did after my last visit,” he wrote. “I will do the same this time.”
Pentagon Keeps Tabs
As it happened, the analysts’ news media appearances were being closely monitored. The Pentagon paid a private contractor, Omnitec Solutions, hundreds of thousands of dollars to scour databases for any trace of the analysts, be it a segment on “The O’Reilly Factor” or an interview with The Daily Inter Lake in Montana, circulation 20,000.
Omnitec evaluated their appearances using the same tools as corporate branding experts. One report, assessing the impact of several trips to Iraq in 2005, offered example after example of analysts echoing Pentagon themes on all the networks.
“Commentary from all three Iraq trips was extremely positive over all,” the report concluded.
In interviews, several analysts reacted with dismay when told they were described as reliable “surrogates” in Pentagon documents. And some asserted that their Pentagon sessions were, as David L. Grange, a retired Army general and CNN analyst put it, “just upfront information,” while others pointed out, accurately, that they did not always agree with the administration or each other. “None of us drink the Kool-Aid,” General Scales said.
Likewise, several also denied using their special access for business gain. “Not related at all,” General Shepperd said, pointing out that many in the Pentagon held CNN “in the lowest esteem.”
Still, even the mildest of criticism could draw a challenge. Several analysts told of fielding telephone calls from displeased defense officials only minutes after being on the air.
On Aug. 3, 2005, 14 marines died in Iraq. That day, Mr. Cowan, who said he had grown increasingly uncomfortable with the “twisted version of reality” being pushed on analysts in briefings, called the Pentagon to give “a heads-up” that some of his comments on Fox “may not all be friendly,” Pentagon records show. Mr. Rumsfeld’s senior aides quickly arranged a private briefing for him, yet when he told Bill O’Reilly that the United States was “not on a good glide path right now” in Iraq, the repercussions were swift.
Mr. Cowan said he was “precipitously fired from the analysts group” for this appearance. The Pentagon, he wrote in an e-mail message, “simply didn’t like the fact that I wasn’t carrying their water.” The next day James T. Conway, then director of operations for the Joint Chiefs, presided over another conference call with analysts. He urged them, a transcript shows, not to let the marines’ deaths further erode support for the war.
“The strategic target remains our population,” General Conway said. “We can lose people day in and day out, but they’re never going to beat our military. What they can and will do if they can is strip away our support. And you guys can help us not let that happen.”
“General, I just made that point on the air,” an analyst replied.
“Let’s work it together, guys,” General Conway urged.
The Generals’ Revolt
The full dimensions of this mutual embrace were perhaps never clearer than in April 2006, after several of Mr. Rumsfeld’s former generals — none of them network military analysts — went public with devastating critiques of his wartime performance. Some called for his resignation.
On Friday, April 14, with what came to be called the “Generals’ Revolt” dominating headlines, Mr. Rumsfeld instructed aides to summon military analysts to a meeting with him early the next week, records show. When an aide urged a short delay to “give our big guys on the West Coast a little more time to buy a ticket and get here,” Mr. Rumsfeld’s office insisted that “the boss” wanted the meeting fast “for impact on the current story.”
That same day, Pentagon officials helped two Fox analysts, General McInerney and General Vallely, write an opinion article for The Wall Street Journal defending Mr. Rumsfeld.
“Starting to write it now,” General Vallely wrote to the Pentagon that afternoon. “Any input for the article,” he added a little later, “will be much appreciated.” Mr. Rumsfeld’s office quickly forwarded talking points and statistics to rebut the notion of a spreading revolt.
“Vallely is going to use the numbers,” a Pentagon official reported that afternoon.
The standard secrecy notwithstanding, plans for this session leaked, producing a front-page story in The Times that Sunday. In damage-control mode, Pentagon officials scrambled to present the meeting as routine and directed that communications with analysts be kept “very formal,” records show. “This is very, very sensitive now,” a Pentagon official warned subordinates.
On Tuesday, April 18, some 17 analysts assembled at the Pentagon with Mr. Rumsfeld and General Pace, then the chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
A transcript of that session, never before disclosed, shows a shared determination to marginalize war critics and revive public support for the war.
“I’m an old intel guy,” said one analyst. (The transcript omits speakers’ names.) “And I can sum all of this up, unfortunately, with one word. That is Psyops. Now most people may hear that and they think, ‘Oh my God, they’re trying to brainwash.’ ”
“What are you, some kind of a nut?” Mr. Rumsfeld cut in, drawing laughter. “You don’t believe in the Constitution?”
There was little discussion about the actual criticism pouring forth from Mr. Rumsfeld’s former generals. Analysts argued that opposition to the war was rooted in perceptions fed by the news media, not reality. The administration’s overall war strategy, they counseled, was “brilliant” and “very successful.”
“Frankly,” one participant said, “from a military point of view, the penalty, 2,400 brave Americans whom we lost, 3,000 in an hour and 15 minutes, is relative.”
An analyst said at another point: “This is a wider war. And whether we have democracy in Iraq or not, it doesn’t mean a tinker’s damn if we end up with the result we want, which is a regime over there that’s not a threat to us.”
“Yeah,” Mr. Rumsfeld said, taking notes.
But winning or not, they bluntly warned, the administration was in grave political danger so long as most Americans viewed Iraq as a lost cause. “America hates a loser,” one analyst said.
Much of the session was devoted to ways that Mr. Rumsfeld could reverse the “political tide.” One analyst urged Mr. Rumsfeld to “just crush these people,” and assured him that “most of the gentlemen at the table” would enthusiastically support him if he did.
“You are the leader,” the analyst told Mr. Rumsfeld. “You are our guy.”
At another point, an analyst made a suggestion: “In one of your speeches you ought to say, ‘Everybody stop for a minute and imagine an Iraq ruled by Zarqawi.’ And then you just go down the list and say, ‘All right, we’ve got oil, money, sovereignty, access to the geographic center of gravity of the Middle East, blah, blah, blah.’ If you can just paint a mental picture for Joe America to say, ‘Oh my God, I can’t imagine a world like that.’ ”
Even as they assured Mr. Rumsfeld that they stood ready to help in this public relations offensive, the analysts sought guidance on what they should cite as the next “milestone” that would, as one analyst put it, “keep the American people focused on the idea that we’re moving forward to a positive end.” They placed particular emphasis on the growing confrontation with Iran.
“When you said ‘long war,’ you changed the psyche of the American people to expect this to be a generational event,” an analyst said. “And again, I’m not trying to tell you how to do your job...”
“Get in line,” Mr. Rumsfeld interjected.
The meeting ended and Mr. Rumsfeld, appearing pleased and relaxed, took the entire group into a small study and showed off treasured keepsakes from his life, several analysts recalled.
Soon after, analysts hit the airwaves. The Omnitec monitoring reports, circulated to more than 80 officials, confirmed that analysts repeated many of the Pentagon’s talking points: that Mr. Rumsfeld consulted “frequently and sufficiently” with his generals; that he was not “overly concerned” with the criticisms; that the meeting focused “on more important topics at hand,” including the next milestone in Iraq, the formation of a new government.
Days later, Mr. Rumsfeld wrote a memorandum distilling their collective guidance into bullet points. Two were underlined:
“Focus on the Global War on Terror — not simply Iraq. The wider war — the long war.”
“Link Iraq to Iran. Iran is the concern. If we fail in Iraq or Afghanistan, it will help Iran.”
But if Mr. Rumsfeld found the session instructive, at least one participant, General Nash, the ABC analyst, was repulsed.
“I walked away from that session having total disrespect for my fellow commentators, with perhaps one or two exceptions,” he said.
View From the Networks
Two weeks ago General Petraeus took time out from testifying before Congress about Iraq for a conference call with military analysts.
Mr. Garrett, the Fox analyst and Patton Boggs lobbyist, said he told General Petraeus during the call to “keep up the great work.”
“Hey,” Mr. Garrett said in an interview, “anything we can do to help.”
For the moment, though, because of heavy election coverage and general war fatigue, military analysts are not getting nearly as much TV time, and the networks have trimmed their rosters of analysts. The conference call with General Petraeus, for example, produced little in the way of immediate coverage.
Still, almost weekly the Pentagon continues to conduct briefings with selected military analysts. Many analysts said network officials were only dimly aware of these interactions. The networks, they said, have little grasp of how often they meet with senior officials, or what is discussed.
“I don’t think NBC was even aware we were participating,” said Rick Francona, a longtime military analyst for the network.
Some networks publish biographies on their Web sites that describe their analysts’ military backgrounds and, in some cases, give at least limited information about their business ties. But many analysts also said the networks asked few questions about their outside business interests, the nature of their work or the potential for that work to create conflicts of interest. “None of that ever happened,” said Mr. Allard, an NBC analyst until 2006.
“The worst conflict of interest was no interest.”
Mr. Allard and other analysts said their network handlers also raised no objections when the Defense Department began paying their commercial airfare for Pentagon-sponsored trips to Iraq — a clear ethical violation for most news organizations.
CBS News declined to comment on what it knew about its military analysts’ business affiliations or what steps it took to guard against potential conflicts.
NBC News also declined to discuss its procedures for hiring and monitoring military analysts. The network issued a short statement: “We have clear policies in place to assure that the people who appear on our air have been appropriately vetted and that nothing in their profile would lead to even a perception of a conflict of interest.”
Jeffrey W. Schneider, a spokesman for ABC, said that while the network’s military consultants were not held to the same ethical rules as its full-time journalists, they were expected to keep the network informed about any outside business entanglements. “We make it clear to them we expect them to keep us closely apprised,” he said.
A spokeswoman for Fox News said executives “refused to participate” in this article.
CNN requires its military analysts to disclose in writing all outside sources of income. But like the other networks, it does not provide its military analysts with the kind of written, specific ethical guidelines it gives its full-time employees for avoiding real or apparent conflicts of interest.
Yet even where controls exist, they have sometimes proven porous.
CNN, for example, said it was unaware for nearly three years that one of its main military analysts, General Marks, was deeply involved in the business of seeking government contracts, including contracts related to Iraq.
General Marks was hired by CNN in 2004, about the time he took a management position at McNeil Technologies, where his job was to pursue military and intelligence contracts. As required, General Marks disclosed that he received income from McNeil Technologies. But the disclosure form did not require him to describe what his job entailed, and CNN acknowledges it failed to do additional vetting.
“We did not ask Mr. Marks the follow-up questions we should have,” CNN said in a written statement.
In an interview, General Marks said it was no secret at CNN that his job at McNeil Technologies was about winning contracts. “I mean, that’s what McNeil does,” he said.
CNN, however, said it did not know the nature of McNeil’s military business or what General Marks did for the company. If he was bidding on Pentagon contracts, CNN said, that should have disqualified him from being a military analyst for the network. But in the summer and fall of 2006, even as he was regularly asked to comment on conditions in Iraq, General Marks was working intensively on bidding for a $4.6 billion contract to provide thousands of translators to United States forces in Iraq. In fact, General Marks was made president of the McNeil spin-off that won the huge contract in December 2006.
General Marks said his work on the contract did not affect his commentary on CNN. “I’ve got zero challenge separating myself from a business interest,” he said.
But CNN said it had no idea about his role in the contract until July 2007, when it reviewed his most recent disclosure form, submitted months earlier, and finally made inquiries about his new job.
“We saw the extent of his dealings and determined at that time we should end our relationship with him,” CNN said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
