Could Haditha Be A Rathergate?

[Annie]

More dot connections:

http://www.townhall.com/opinion/columns/MaryKatharineHam/2006/06/12/200752.html

Links at site:

Setting the record straight on Haditha

By Mary Katharine Ham

Jun 12, 2006

When I worked at a newspaper, my fellow reporters and I made mistakes.
Sometimes those mistakes were on the front page of the paper; sometimes tucked away on B7 between the obits and the county's largest legume. Sometimes they were mispelled names and misplaced box scores; sometimes misused facts and mishandled reputations.

But no matter the nature of the mistake-- its size or its import-- the correction always went in the same place. Second page of the A section, bottom right-hand corner. It was policy, and the policy had the unfortunate consequence of usually making the correction of a mistake less prominent than the mistake itself.

Such is the nature of news coverage on all levels, and one of the most valuable contributions the new media and blogs can make to that news coverage is to highlight corrections that would otherwise be overlooked in their little corner of A2.

A couple of weeks ago, spurred by Congressman John Murtha's assertion that Marines in Haditha had killed civilians "in cold blood," the media promptly rushed to judgement, topping every story with Murtha's cold-blooded soundbite. When word leaked from Pentagon sources that there might be murder charges in the case, the media ran with the "maybe murder" story.

Because no one had yet been charged, and no one was leaking the Marines' side of the story, many became concerned that the slanted coverage might affect the fair treatment and presumption of innocence to which American servicemen are entitled. One of those people was Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, a former Marine lawyer who the Washington Post quoted out of context in its eagerness to get an Abu Ghraib reference into the story.

This week, the media is backing off of its original tone, and it's time to highlight corrections so they don't end up being relegated to the back of the paper and the back of people's minds. So, I give you the Top 3 things to remember about Haditha that the press would like you to forget.

1. Oops, Time After Time

In the first media report on a "possible massacre" at Haditha, back in March, Time magazine reported that "a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME."

Because the incident was under investigation and no one could comment on it, Time used that videotape to bolster the accusations of civilian massacre. Now, buried at the bottom of page four of that article is this correction:

In the original version of this story, TIME reported that "a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME." In fact, Human Rights Watch has no ties or association with the Hammurabi Human Rights Group. TIME regrets the error.

Without the connection to "internationally respected Human Rights Watch," the origin of the video and the motives of the journalist involved become much more questionable.

But that's not the only piece of photographic evidence called into question by Time corrections.

In a subsequent Time story , we have this correction:

In the original version of this story, TIME reported that "one of the most damning pieces of evidence investigators have in their possession, John Sifton of Human Rights Watch told Time's Tim McGirk, is a photo, taken by a Marine with his cell phone that shows Iraqis kneeling — and thus posing no threat — before they were shot."

While Sifton did tell TIME that there was photographic evidence, taken by Marines, he had only heard about the specific content of the photos from reports done by NBC, and had no firsthand knowledge. TIME regrets the error.

Well, I would hope they regret that one. When a major national news magazine claims there is specific photographic evidence of American Marines killing civilians while they were praying and it ends up being wrong, that correction should be as prominent as possible, especially when those Marines have not yet been charged or faced trial.

Over at Sweetness and Light, a blogger takes a look at Time's young journalist source and finds that the journalist was not exactly the green go-getter Time had described.

Why start a human rights group if you want to remain anonymous? And why did Time pretend their source was young? Why did they pretend he had no involvement with Hammurabi? (When in fact he is its founder.)

But that is just the start of the many questionable aspects of Thabit's accounts.

Bear in mind that this "budding journalism student" waited until the next day to videotape this alleged atrocity, which supposedly happened on his very doorstep.

Note that this same "budding journalism student" and self-proclaimed human rights watcher did not bother to turn over his video to a media outlet or a real human rights group from November 2005 until March 2006. A four month delay.

That's how eager they were to make sure such a crime is never again
repeated.

2. Context Come Lately

There was more going on in Haditha that day than just the IED explosion that killed Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas and apparently sparked the fighting that left so many dead.

Capt. James Kimber offers his story:

But that day, at about the same time, Iraqi insurgents attacked all three Marine companies patrolling in the Haditha area--one of them commanded by Kimber. He said he could hear over his radio the shots being fired during a running gun battle in Haditha.

"They weren't just Marine weapons. You can tell from the sound," he said...

Kimber's recollections provide a valuable backdrop to the events last November, a period during which Marine units were encouraged to escalate their use of force in dealing with insurgents, according to a Marine colonel with knowledge of operations in that area.

A source I've talked to, who is involved in the potential defense cases for these Marines, said that the IED that took Terrazas' life was just the beginning of a coordinated insurgent attack on four Marine squads they knew would respond to the first IED attack. The cluster of attacks ended up hampering relief efforts and injuring about a dozen Marines.

As the situation developed, the Marines at the initial ambush site were isolated for a period of time in this hostile city and they had every right to fear for their lives. A group of about 15-20 foreign fighters were believed to be in Haditha that day, supplemented by local insurgents. Knowing that 6 Marines had been surrounded and killed in Haditha before help could reach them just three months before, the isolated Marines had to fear the worst as they responded to the first attack.

Haditha was a hotbed of insurgency in November of last year. It's important to remember the frequency and intensity of attacks these Marines were facing. There's also another side to the story, and the accused are beginning to tell it through their lawyers:

A sergeant who led a squad of Marines during the incident in Haditha, Iraq, that left as many as 24 civilians dead said his unit did not intentionally target any civilians, followed military rules of engagement and never tried to cover up the shootings, his attorney said.

Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich, 26, told his attorney that several civilians were killed Nov. 19 when his squad went after insurgents who were firing at them from inside a house. The Marine said there was no vengeful massacre, but he described a house-to-house hunt that went tragically awry in the middle of a chaotic battlefield.

3. The Nature of the Enemy

Something terrible happened in Haditha. The day ended with one Marine and 15 Iraqi civilians dead. But we don't know how it happened or what the reasons were.

What we do know is that it is the exception to the rule to find American Marines wantonly murdering civilians. It is rather the rule, however, for insurgents to put those same civilians-- women and
children-- in harm's way.

That is what Terrazas' father says happened that day in Haditha:

Exactly what happened that day remains unclear. Miguel Terrazas' father, Martin, said the Marines his son fought with told him that after the car bomb exploded the Marines took a defensive position around his son's battered vehicle. Insurgents immediately started shooting from nearby buildings, and the insurgents were using women and children as human shields, Martin said he was told.

The Marines shot back because "it was going to be them or" the insurgents, Martin said of what his son's fellow Marines briefly described to him.

It wouldn't be the first time terrorists have shown such disgusting disregard for the lives of children.

We do not know what happened in Haditha on November 19, 2005. When two military investigations and any trials that result are complete, it will become more clear. If Marines are guilty of atrocities, they will be punished severely.

In the meantime, rely on alternative media and bloggers like Mudville Gazette , Sweetness and Light , California Conservative , and this bunch of informed milbloggers to keep level heads about the accusations.

The mainstream media spent a couple of weeks throwing around the "cold blood" and "maybe murder" stories. Now that they're backtracking, it's our job to make sure new corrections and less damning facts don't get lost in the corner of page two.

 

[theHawk]

Of course our media only attacks the Marines. Never a peep about the low-life, gutless coward terrorists attacking our troops and hiding behind women and children.

 

[Bonnie]

Insightful observation, K. It reminds me of Bernard Goldberg's sensible belief that Upper Manhattan Elites don't actually sit in their offices and say, "OK - how can we slant this particular story?" It's just that their perception ITSELF is so myopic - so divorced from reality - that they have lost the ability to think objectively.

Bernie essentially asserts that no media person can be objective in the kind of climate they live and work in which is totally of the liberal mindset. All you need do is look at what liberals consider moderate thinking, it still resembles socialism, which explains how they see average everyday middleclass christians as stupid, uneducated, radical extremeists. If it weren't so scary it would be funny


A bit more on this story

Overview: Haditha looks like it has a pretty high probability of being, at least in part, a set-up. The insurgents have perhaps stumbled upon a brilliant strategy of the using gullible or willing reporters of the MSM, and the American legal system to apply a one-two punch to the superb efforts of the US military. TIME Magazine’s performance reminds us of Rathergate. The insurgents and Al Qaeda’s transformation of Haditha into Bloodywood, the Snuff Film capital of Iraq, presents yet another new low in the evil that radical Islam has brought into the world.

(1) TIME’s Rathergate moment

The more we look at the Haditha story, the more it looks like Rathergate. It even has its own versions of Bill Burkett and Mary Mapes/Dan Rather. Let’s take Burkett first:

Iraq’s Bill Burkett, Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi

Clarice Feldman in The American Thinker discussed the new Bill Burkett, the awfully fishy timelines in the Haditha matter, an unsavory cast of accusers, and a Ramirez-Burkett-Mapes-like chain of custody of the allegedly damning videotapes. Also, via Sweetness and Light, we got a sense of how bad the reporting has been to date on the new Burkett. TIME has gotten many of its facts wrong:

In the original version of this story, TIME reported that “a day after the incident, a Haditha journalism student videotaped the scene at the local morgue and at the homes where the killings had occurred. The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, which cooperates with the internationally respected Human Rights Watch, and has been shared with TIME.”

TIME has since repudiated most of the preceding sentence. In one of its most laughable errors, TIME called its source, the “Haditha journalism student,” a “young man.” Here he is:



Consider these items gleaned from the articles we’ve linked to, as opposed to the breathless TIME reporting:

(a) Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi is not a young man, he is 43 years old;
(b) he is not a “budding journalism student”;
(c) there is no such thing as the “Hammurabi Human rights Group” — it is Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi and maybe one other guy;
(d) TIME’s reporting to the contrary, the Hammurabi Human Rights Group is in no way affiliated with Human Rights Watch;
(e) Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi made the video — of whatever it actually portrays — and sat on it for four months wiothout doing anything with his so-called damning evidence;
(f) TIME has already retracted its false reporting about “one of the most damning pieces of evidence” in the case;
(g) Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi’s previous employer, Dr. Walid Al-Obeidi, who said that the Hadith victims had been shot at close range, had previously been arrested by American and Iraqis and had lodged numerous complaints against the American military;
(h) the US soldier who has provided corroboration for a “massacre” though he was not an eyewitness, Lance Cpl. Ryan Briones, never mentioned it until he was arrested for stealing a truck while drunk and crashing it into a house, at which point he claimed PTSD and offered his story;
(i) another reporter who claimed civilian deaths in Haditha, Ali al-Mashhadani, had been previously arrested and imprisoned for five months for helping insurgents, and might be the brother of Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi’s partner in the so-called Hammurabi Human Rights Group;
(j) To give you a little perspective of how brutal the Sunni insurgency stronghold of Haditha is (where terrorists rule and reportedly almost none out of 90,000 dared vote), and how plentiful are corpses to be used for any purpose whatsoever, consider this Guardian story of how children cheer for “double-bills” of public beheadings, and that DVD’s of disembowlings are distributed to kids.

Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi and his sudden discovery of his four month old video make Bill Burkett and Lucy Ramirez look good by comparison.

TIME’s Tim McGirk as Mary Mapes and Dan Rather



TIME Magazine veteran Tim McGirk, pictured above, is the one who has reported all the inaccuracies you just read about. The 1974 Berkeley grad does rather seem to have an agenda, does he not. Perhaps we can get a feel for how he views the world from his reporting of his Thanksgiving Dinner with the Taliban, in November 2001, while the US was actively at war with these men, via Theodore’s World:

“There was a genuine Thanksgiving glow about the meal. The bread is good, and more Taliban fighters come in to partake. One of them, a little man with a beard like a troll’s, says he’s Mullah Mohammed Omar’s nephew. But he hasn’t seen his uncle much lately: the Taliban supreme commander has been awfully busy since Sept. 11.”

“I leave thinking that maybe this evening wasn’t very different from the original Thanksgiving: people from two warring cultures sharing a meal together and realizing, briefly, that we’re not so different after all.”

At one point, McGirk thought he was going to be mistaken for Osama bin Laden. Perhaps it is no wonder that that particular fantasy entered his head, given what we are now beginning to learn about his views of the world.

We don’t know what happened in Haditha any more than you do. But the many and telling inaccuracies in TIME’s reporting so far seem to point almost exclusively in one direction. Are we beginning to sense a pattern here yet, ladies and gentlemen? Is the fish beginning to stink? Is TIME Magazine about to experience its own Rathergate?

(2) The al Qaeda / insurgent Snuff Film industry: Haditha becomes Bloodywood

The more we think about it, especially in the post-Zarqawi era, perhaps the best strategy for the insurgents is an ACLU/MSM strategy. Every time there is a fire-fight, the insurgents should kill a couple of dozen women and children and blame it on the American military — the blaming is best done at least a couple of weeks or months after the incident, so that the dead will be buried and will not be disinterred, and other evidence will be gone. A little videotape of some blood and guts, a terrorist connected mayor, and a couple of “journalists” like the ones the insurgents call up to take pictures of regularly scheduled car bombs and exuctutions, and voilà, a major scandal. But it doesn’t even have to be a major scandal. All the terrorists and insurgents have to do is activate the internal legal system of the military, and within a short period of time, all major military initiatives will grind to a halt, so everyone in the US military can investigate everyone else in the military. If the insurgents can both clog up the military’s legal processes and get 24/7 MSM coverage of the scandal, that is the best of all possible worlds. And it appears that they just may have hit upon this precise strategy.

AJ Strata complements our thoughts with a discussion from the Marine Times and his reflections on Bloodywood, the Al Qaeda Snuff Film center of Haditha:

[Marines] found a video camera in the possession of three men stopped at a vehicle checkpoint northeast of Haditha…Minutes later, a similar white, four–door sedan approached the checkpoint. U.S. forces guarding the checkpoint used hand and arm gestures to signal the vehicle to stop, but the car continued to accelerate toward the checkpoint, even after warning shots were fired, according to the release. The vehicle detonated shortly after the first shots were fired, killing the driver.

When the video camera was inspected, it yielded several minutes of footage showing one of the men from the first sedan speaking to the driver of the car that detonated. The Marines said videotaping suicide car bombings is an insurgent propaganda tactic used to spread fear and intimidate Iraqi citizens. Earlier, Iraqi Security Forces discovered an insurgent propaganda center in Haditha. The site raided by Iraqi forces included “numerous prepared al–Qaida in Iraq compact discs and audio tapes, three computers, several printers, banner makers, multi–disk copiers and thousands of [blank] disks and tapes…”

[Strata:] Which is more likely: Marines go on a rampage but no one reports abouts it for months, or AQ kills people of their propaganda snuff films? Since we know AQ will bomb and behead on video, seems the track record is clear which is the more likely scenario.

The terrorists and insurgents play the MSM like a fiddle, since they know that gullible or willing MSM reporters are the weak point of the US and one of their greatest assets. Combine that with their effective exploitation of American legal processes, and they have a possible strategy to achieve impossible victory — if Americans are gullible and stupid enough.

UPDATE

Chickenhawk Express has pointed out a number of other inconsistencies in the reports from enemy accusers.

http://www.dinocrat.com/archives/2006/06/10/from-jenin-to-haditha/

 

[Annie]

UPDATE, links at site:

http://hotair.com/archives/the-blog/2006/06/17/nyt-on-haditha-investigation-looks-bad-for-marines/

NYT on Haditha: Investigation looks bad for Marines
posted at 12:29 pm on June 17, 2006 by Allahpundit
Send to a Friend | printer-friendly

The shootings inside the homes aren’t even the worst of it, their sources say. It’s the evidence from the killing of the first five men, who the Marines claimed were fleeing the scene in a “taxi,” that’s most damning.

The overview:

nvestigators have found evidence that the men in the taxi were not fleeing the bombing scene, as the marines have told military officials. Investigators have also concluded that most of the victims in three houses died from well-aimed rifle shots, not shrapnel or random fire, according to military officials familiar with the initial findings…

[A]ccording to two people briefed on the investigation, one member of the Marine squad at Haditha, himself closely tied to some of the deaths, is now cooperating with investigators.
​

The taxi:

Two people briefed on the investigation said Thursday that evidence gathered on the shooting of the taxi passengers now appeared to be the most at odds with the account given by marines through their lawyers.

One Defense Department official said photographs indicated that the positions of those corpses — and the pooling of their blood — can be viewed as sharply inconsistent with the marines’ version that the Iraqi men were shot as they fled.​

The houses (Colonel Watt conducted the preliminary investigation):

For several reasons, Colonel Watt does not believe the marines’ version is accurate, according to a military official who has been briefed on the investigation but who would not discuss it on the record because it was not yet complete…

Some marines told Colonel Watt they were let into the houses they entered; others said they conducted forced entries, the military official said… The wounds of the dead Iraqis, as seen in photographs and viewed by the morgue director, were not consistent with attacks by fragmentation grenades and indiscriminate rifle fire, Colonel Watt found.​

The opinion of the Iraqi medical expert, for reasons elsewhere explained, might not be credible. The photographs, which I wrote about here, are more worrisome. Then there’s this:

In addition, if the marines had violently cleared the houses using automatic weapons and fragmentation grenades, there would be lots of damage and bullet marks in the walls. Early investigators said they found no such evidence, although the walls may have been patched before they arrived.​

You think? From Time’s original story on Haditha: “The video was obtained by the Hammurabi Human Rights Group, and has been shared with TIME… The scenes from inside the houses show that the walls and ceilings are pockmarked with shrapnel and bullet holes as well as the telltale spray of blood.” The fact that the investigators are citing the paucity of blemishes on the walls when there’s infamous video evidence to the contrary makes me wonder.

Here’s the last of it. The firefight:

Members of this squad gave differing accounts of their actions. One said that they quickly came under fire. “All we knew was, there’s a big firefight,” one marine in this group told his lawyer, Paul L. Hackett, a major in the Marine Reserves and an unsuccessful Democratic candidate for Congress from Ohio in a special election last fall. “You just heard it everywhere, medium, heavy machine gun fire.”…

But a corporal from this same group, who had been badly wounded in Falluja but was able to return for a second deployment, said there was intermittent small-arms fire that did not appear to him to be directed at his patrol. The other marine may have been hearing the First Squad’s action about 700 yards up the road at the bombing site and thought they were under fire, he suggested.

Assuming all this can be explained away, there’s the separate question about the rules of engagement: namely, whether blind-fire room-clearing tactics were appropriate in an environment with civilians scattered about. They were used successfully in Fallujah — but the citizens there had all been evacuated before the operation began.

Needless to say, the blockquotes above aren’t exhaustive. Read the whole article. The Times has a graphic up too about which victims were in which houses, which I really should compare to Dan Riehl’s post about the media inconsistencies on that point. I’m worn out right now, though, and I’m sure Dan himself will be tackling this later, so keep your eye on his site.

Update: Regarding the firefight, the Marines’ lawyers seem pretty confident.

Update: Dan responds. Check out what he found in a Washington Post article from late May — an Iraqi eyewitness on record as saying the men in the taxi were trying to flee.