Fisk Fingers American Media

Good article as usual by Fisk, but the interesting stuff here is about the US getting in bed with the Algerian security forces which were exposed a few years ago having carried out a brutal campaign against it’s own people flollowing cancellation of elections:

===========================================

http://argument.independent.co.uk/commentators/story.jsp?story=366199

Robert Fisk: The double standards, dubious morality and duplicity of this fight against terror

Meanwhile, we are ploughing on to war in Iraq, which has oil, but avoiding war in Korea, which does not have oil

04 January 2003

I think I’m getting the picture. North Korea breaks all its nuclear agreements with the United States, throws out UN inspectors and sets off to make a bomb a year, and President Bush says it’s “a diplomatic issue”. Iraq hands over a 12,000-page account of its weapons production and allows UN inspectors to roam all over the country, and – after they’ve found not a jam-jar of dangerous chemicals in 230 raids – President Bush announces that Iraq is a threat to America, has not disarmed and may have to be invaded. So that’s it, then.

How, readers keep asking me in the most eloquent of letters, does he get away with it? Indeed, how does Tony Blair get away with it? Not long ago in the House of Commons, our dear Prime Minister was announcing in his usual schoolmasterly tones – the ones used on particularly inattentive or dim boys in class – that Saddam’s factories of mass destruction were “up [pause] and running [pause] now.” But the Dear Leader in Pyongyang does have factories that are “up [pause] and running [pause] now”. And Tony Blair is silent.

Why do we tolerate this? Why do Americans? Over the past few days, there has been just the smallest of hints that the American media – the biggest and most culpable backer of the White House’s campaign of mendacity – has been, ever so timidly, asking a few questions. Months after The Independent first began to draw its readers’ attention to Donald Rumsfeld’s chummy personal visits to Saddam in Baghdad at the height of Iraq’s use of poison gas against Iran in 1983, The Washington Post has at last decided to tell its own readers a bit of what was going on. The reporter Michael Dobbs includes the usual weasel clauses (“opinions differ among Middle East experts… whether Washington could have done more to stop the flow to Baghdad of technology for building weapons of mass destruction”), but the thrust is there: we created the monster and Mr Rumsfeld played his part in doing so.

But no American – or British – newspaper has dared to investigate another, almost equally dangerous, relationship that the present US administration is forging behind our backs: with the military-supported regime in Algeria. *For 10 years now, one of the world’s dirtiest wars has been fought out in this country, supposedly between “Islamists” and “security forces”, in which almost 200,000 people – mostly civilians – have been killed. But over the past five years there has been growing evidence that elements of those same security forces were involved in some of the bloodiest massacres, including the throat-cutting of babies. *The Independent has published the most detailed reports of Algerian police torture and of the extrajudicial executions of women as well as men. Yet the US, as part of its obscene “war on terror”, has cosied up to the Algerian regime. It is helping to re-arm Algeria’s army and promised more assistance. William Burns, the US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, announced that Washington “has much to learn from Algeria on ways to fight terrorism”.

And of course, he’s right. The Algerian security forces can instruct the Americans on how to make a male or female prisoner believe that they are going to suffocate. The method – US personnel can find the experts in this particular torture technique working in the basement of the Château Neuf police station in central Algiers – is to cover the trussed-up victim’s mouth with a rag and then soak it with cleaning fluid. The prisoner slowly suffocates. There’s also, of course, the usual nail-pulling and the usual wires attached to penises and vaginas and – I’ll always remember the eye-witness description – the rape of an old woman in a police station, from which she emerged, covered in blood, urging other prisoners to resist.

Some of the witnesses to these abominations were Algerian police officers who had sought sanctuary in London. But rest assured, Mr Burns is right, America has much to learn from the Algerians. Already, for example – don’t ask why this never reached the newspapers – the Algerian army chief of staff has been warmly welcomed at Nato’s southern command headquarters at Naples.

And the Americans are learning. A national security official attached to the CIA divulged last month that when it came to prisoners, “our guys may kick them around a little in the adrenaline of the immediate aftermath (sic).” Another US “national security” official announced that “pain control in wounded patients is a very subjective thing”. But let’s be fair. The Americans may have learnt this wickedness from the Algerians. They could just as well have learned it from the Taliban.

Meanwhile, inside the US, the profiling of Muslims goes on apace. On 17 November, thousands of Iranians, Iraqis, Syrians, Libyans, Afghans, Bahrainis, Eritreans, Lebanese, Moroccans, Omanis, Qataris, Somalis, Tunisians, Yemenis and Emiratis turned up at federal offices to be finger-printed. The New York Times – the most chicken of all the American papers in covering the post-9/11 story – revealed (only in paragraph five of its report, of course) that “over the past week, agency officials… have handcuffed and detained hundreds of men who showed up to be finger-printed. In some cases the men had expired student or work visas; in other cases, the men could not provide adequate documentation of their immigration status.”

In Los Angeles, the cops ran out of plastic handcuffs as they herded men off to the lockup. Of the 1,000 men arrested without trial or charges after 11 September, many were native-born Americans.

Indeed, many Americans don’t even know what the chilling acronym of the “US Patriot Act” even stands for. “Patriot” is not a reference to patriotism. The name stands for the “United and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act”. America’s $200m (£125m) “Total Awareness Programme” will permit the US government to monitor citizens’ e-mail and internet activity and collect data on the movement of all Americans. And although we have not been told about this by our journalists, the US administration is now pestering European governments for the contents of their own citizens’ data files. The most recent – and most preposterous – of these claims came in a US demand for access to the computer records of the French national airline, Air France, so that it could “profile” thousands of its passengers. All this is beyond the wildest dreams of Saddam and the Dear Leader Kim.

The new rules even worm their way into academia. Take the friendly little university of Purdue in Indiana, where I lectured a few weeks ago. With federal funds, it’s now setting up an “Institute for Homeland Security”, whose 18 “experts” will include executives from Boeing and Hewlett-Packard and US Defence and State Department officials, to organise “research programmes” around “critical mission areas”. What, I wonder, are these areas to be? Surely nothing to do with injustice in the Middle East, the Arab-Israeli conflict or the presence of thousands of US troops on Arab lands. After all, it was Richard Perle, the most sinister of George Bush’s pro-Israeli advisers, who stated last year that “terrorism must be decontextualised”.

Meanwhile, we are – on that very basis – ploughing on to war in Iraq, which has oil, but avoiding war in Korea, which does not have oil. And our leaders are getting away with it. In doing so, we are threatening the innocent, torturing our prisoners and “learning” from men who should be in the dock for war crimes. This, then, is our true memorial to the men and women so cruelly murdered in the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001.

As usual, a :k:

Re: Fisk Fingers American Media

[QUOTE]
Originally posted by Judge^MentuLL: *
**For 10 years now, one of the world's dirtiest wars has been fought out in this country, supposedly between "Islamists" and "security forces", in which almost 200,000 people – mostly civilians – have been killed.... The Independent has published the most detailed reports of Algerian police torture and of the extrajudicial executions of women as well as men. Yet the US, as part of its obscene "war on terror", has cosied up to the Algerian regime. It is helping to re-arm Algeria's army and promised more assistance. *William Burns, the US Assistant Secretary of State for the Middle East, announced that Washington "has much to learn from Algeria on ways to fight terrorism".
*
[/quote]
*

i couldn't believe that some 200,000 people (mostly civilians) have been killed so far in this war in Algeria... Is this supposed to be the type of country that the US has "much to learn" from?

Thanks for posting, JM.

Fisk fingered american media???? Did it feel good? LOL! This guy is a half-asses journalist. He wishes he could work for an American publication.

Chaltahai, bad spellers on Israeli payroll can write for the American media.... real journalists can learn a thing or two from Fisk.

Yeah..how to be a mediocre journalist. He is an idiot.

Fisk is without a doubt the most self-serving journalist I have ever seen, (short of Fox television).

He will take a quote out of context, write a few lines about the INS, Purdue University, the "patriot act" add a blurb or two, especially about oil, and weave this mosaic of conspiracy theories and call it journalism. I could probably create some software to randomly spew "Fiskisms" together and write the next hundred articles for him!

At best he should be called an editorialist, at worst he is a self- promoting hack.

But he sure strokes the needs of his readers!

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Ohioguy: *
But he sure strokes the needs of his readers!
[/QUOTE]

um just wondering, might not the same be stated of Friedman?

Nadia,

Hi, I missed you! :biggrin:

The difference is that Friedman works very hard to understand the Arab mind. Despite being a Jew, he was the one who exposed the massacres in Lebanon, and has shown substantial balance in his views. Is he opinionated? Sure. He is also published as an op-ed, not as a hard journalistic reporter.

Friedman was working very hard at promoting the Saudi Peace ovatures, and he makes it a point to travel to many of the countries of throughout the Gulf and take the pulse of the people. I can’t imagine Fisk trying to understand the Jews, or the US for that matter. Friedman generally has a point to his articles that is a new and different insight, Fisk continually rehashes the same themes over and over and over.

Fisk is also intellectually dishonest. The US IS “rearming” Algeria, but has limited it’s help to “non-lethal” help. Do you not think that the Algerians know and understand that further help may be tied to improvements in their behavior? Yet Fisk would lead you to believe that we are best buddies with Algeria, and have been drooling to learn some good torture techniques from them. The average reader would be drawn to the conclusion that where there is smoke there is fire, and that the US is the hidden hand behind the conflict in Algeria. He simply has not presented the facts backing this up, but he leaves the reader with the inference by inclusion of a few slimy sentences.

Fisk’s writing is jumpy and scattered, while Friedman’s generally flows very well from point to point, and most articles contain only one major discussion.

Then again, I really just don’t like Fisk.

pLus we all know that jews are better writers than gentiles anyday.

>>Hi, I missed you! :biggrin:<<
aw. Thank you.
Missed you too - i think you have been somewhat busy with trying to get your name on the Tetris scoreboard :slight_smile: It’s a tough game, i find. Good luck :k:

You state that, The difference is that Friedman works very hard to understand the Arab mind. Despite being a Jew, he was the one who exposed the massacres in Lebanon, and has shown substantial balance in his views.
Sorry, but hasn’t Fisk also worked “hard to understand the Arab mind”? i think he has lived in the region for over thirty years (i realize that that alone does not constitute him being an expert). i think what gets overlooked in this board vis-a-vis Fisk’s critique is that several of his themes have also focused upon the Muslim regimes he has come in contact with. He doesn’t mince his words when it comes to criticizing them on their own merit, apart from their relationships with the US. That shows “balance” as well. As for exposing massacres in Lebanon - i am a bit surprised that you mention Friedman, as Fisk has been one of the most outspoken individuals ever, i think, regarding this issue.

>>Do you not think that the Algerians know and understand that further help may be tied to improvements in their behavior? Yet Fisk would lead you to believe that we are best buddies with Algeria, and have been drooling to learn some good torture techniques from them.<<
OG, you write as though you believe that Fisk jumps at the chance to show disdain towards the US at any opportunity he can grab. i am not certain if it works this way - he’s criticized Muslim govts. several times in his work, for their torture techniques, their repression, their farcical psuedo-elections. Maybe those articles do not receive as much exposure on this board as they should, but his critical opinions (of Muslim govts.) are there nevertheless on the Independent website.

If he wanted to cater towards a particular audience (say, Muslims), then i doubt he would write the above type of articles.

Then again i guess this is a subjective issue. As much as i loathe Friedman’s work, i realize maybe there is some truth in what he writes that i am overlooking/rejecting because of my biases. Not certain.

Fisk's credentials as a journalist are hardly in doubt. Anyway, it's the article itself which is important, and if Americans are now cosying up with Algerian security forces I don't blame their media for wanting to keep it quiet. There is evidence that they carried out some of the most brutal campaigns against their own population that can be remebered in in recent history.

I'm not saying that US doesn't have valid reasons for it's actions, just that there's no point in painting rosy pictures or avoiding the truth.

Judge,

If you want to consider Fisk an editorial writer, fine. But look at the emotionally charged words and phrases he uses. He has an accusatory conspiratorial tone, and in every one of his articles he has almost this hushed whisper about secrets you will only know if you read his articles.

In this particular article he alludes to the “special” coverage in the Independent of Algeria’s security services. He could have written the article from the US State Department’s web site who definitely had the scoop quite a while ago.

"The security forces committed extrajudicial killings, mostly during clashes with armed terrorist groups. The number of such killings in connection with such clashes decreased by about 19 percent during the year compared with 2000. On March 11, security forces backed by helicopters pursued and killed seven suspected terrorists in Skikda, 316 miles east of Algiers. In late April, Government forces surrounded for 11 days an abandoned mine used as a stronghold by the terrorist Salifast Group for Call and Combat calling for the terrorists to surrender. Security forces then used explosives to collapse the mine, killing 70 persons. The Government maintains that security forces resort to lethal force only in the context of armed clashes with terrorists. The Government also contends that, as a matter of policy, disciplinary action is taken against soldiers or policemen who are guilty of violating human rights, and that some disciplinary action was taken during the year. However, the government does not release routinely specific information regarding punishments of military and security force personnel.

On April 18, Massinissa Guermah, a 19-year-old Amazigh high school student, died in the custody of security forces of gunshot wounds received from an AK-47 semi-automatic weapon. In a report of the Issaad commission appointed by the Government which investigated the incident, security force witnesses testified that the weapon had fired inadvertently when it slipped from a gendarme’s hand while the safety mechanism was unlocked. According to an Amnesty International report, this version has been challenged by a witness who claimed that he heard Guermah plead his innocence to gendarmes before the shots were fired. During the April 22-28 demonstrations and riots that ensued in the Kabylie region following Guermah’s death, security forces used excessive force, killing at least 45 rioters and demonstrators and injuring many hundreds more. While putting down the riots, security forces used live (not rubber) rounds on the crowd, shooting some persons in the back (see Sections 1.c, 1.d, 2.b, and 5). Press reports have estimated that as many as 80 rioters may have died at the hands of security forces during the riots that continued into the summer. Ten days after Guermah’s death, the local gendarmerie issued a statement claiming that the official responsible for the death of Guermah had been court-martialed. The Government appointed two separate commissions to investigate Guermah’s death and the violence that followed it. One was composed of members of the National Assembly. The report of the other commission, headed by respected Amazigh jurist Mohand Issaad, found that the security forces version of the death was “not satisfactory,” blamed gendarmerie units for using excessive force in putting down the demonstrations, and found that the units did so without orders. The report, which criticized a lack of security-force cooperation that hampered the Commission’s ability to gather information, was released to the press by the President and received significant media coverage. The National Assembly commission had not issued a report by year’s end."

Nadia–If I remember correctly Friedman wrote a five page expose of the Sabra and Shatilla massacres and won a Pulitzer for it. He was the New York Times correspondent in Beirut at the time.

Fisk writes about Arab govenments, in large part because his readers hate those governments. Certainly the buyers of the Independent would be more oriented toward democratic rule of those countries, and they enjoy Fisk’s criticism. As best I can remember, I have never heard a positive suggestion or upbeat appraisal from Fisk for anything. Friedman from time to time inserts suggestions, and recently had very positive appraisals of the democratic youth movement in Iran.

I am busted on the Tetris!

lets get out of the fisk vs friedman competition and discuss whether what fisk notes is true and what do people feel about it.

OK, try this on:

States Fisk:

"Meanwhile, we are – on that very basis – ploughing on to war in Iraq, which has oil, but avoiding war in Korea, which does not have oil. And our leaders are getting away with it. In doing so, we are threatening the innocent, torturing our prisoners and "learning" from men who should be in the dock for war crimes. This, then, is our true memorial to the men and women so cruelly murdered in the crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001."

From the top of his "kitchen sink" agenda:

In Korea we have strong regional partners, and Korea is completely contained. If the PRNK decides to go to war then perhaps 400,000 innocents in South Korea will die in the first week, no matter what technology short of Nuclear weapons the US would use to defend them. The right thing to do is to negociate.

We are not "threatening the innocent" We are trying to get a lax and inefficient INS to try to control people who are illegally here.

We are not "torturing our prisoners", that is Fisk sensationalizing.

And we DO have more sympathy for other countries who are at war with radical Islamic elements. Does that mean we will not try to engage them and change their behaviors with carrots and sticks? Fisk has not even explored that, and has rather leapt to that conclusion through the use of an out of context quote......

So once again Fisk thows up his hands and screams "this is all wrong!", without offering a single suggestion as to how a better policy may emerge. Fisk is a prime example of those who make a living by being professional critics, instead of realizing that the world has changed, and is in the process of establishing a new equalibrium.

As much as we do not want to focus on the writing style of various commentators, it is relevant. Fisk makes his living by whipping people into a lather of rightious indignation. This fails to properly frame the discussion, and sells papers without making a real contribution.

OG

I am not a fisk fan, but he seems to be the opposite version of tons of other reporters and experts that show their faces on fox news. as far as solutions go, they offer solutions but most of them border on psychotic warmongering everywhere and an us vs. them for anyone who opposes US policy on anything, even if it is the public sentiment at our strongest allies like the UK.

anyhow, if fisk wants to be a gadfly thats upto him. Ignore teh sensationalizing and maybe take away some of the issues thata re pointed out. kinda like any sensible person will do with Fox news or CNN etc.

FIsk is an idiot. You guys are still going on about hwo much of a idiot he really is?

Fraudz,

Completely agree, the caliber of TV reporting is somewhere below Whale C**p. But Fisk is held out to be a jounalist, not a "news entertainer". Sensationalism needs to be replaced with information education and considered opinion.

By the way did you see "Joe Millionaire" on Fox last night, the wife and I missed it! LOL

Even if Fisk is Jack the Ripper's heir apparent, there are still valid questions that need answering. My main concern is that I remember all too well the slaugther that was carried out when the Algerian elections were cancelled, firstly the blame was laid at the Islamists some who broke off and took on the army. The response from the Algerian security services was to dress up as islamists and slaughter everyone they could who came from those areas sparing nobody. If Fisk wants to bring to attention just who the US is dealing with, why is everybody jumping up and down about it? Maybe it's justified to co-operate with these animals, but why shoot the messenger?

No, that is Fisk reporting what has been widely reported by other sources, including the HRW which you are sometimes keen to quote.

United States: Reports of Torture of Al-Qaeda Suspects](United States: Reports of Torture of Al-Qaeda Suspects | Human Rights Watch)

CIA accused of torture at Bagram base](CIA accused of torture at Bagram base | World news | The Guardian)

US turns to torture to crack prisoners of war](US turns to torture to crack prisoners of war)