<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content=text/html;charset=iso-8859-1 http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3110.7"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size=1>
<P>Here is a John Pilger article from 10th April:</P>
<P>A BBC television producer, moments before he was wounded by an American
fighter aircraft that killed 18 people with "friendly fire", spoke to
his mother on a satellite phone. Holding the phone over his head so that she
could hear the sound of the American planes overhead, he said: "Listen,
that's the sound of freedom."</P>
<P>Did I read this scene in Catch-22? Surely, the BBC man was being ferociously
ironic. I doubt it, just as I doubt that whoever designed the Observer's page
three last Sunday had Joseph Heller in mind when he wrote the weasel headline:
"The moment young Omar discovered the price of war". These cowardly
words accompanied a photograph of an American marine reaching out to comfort
15-year-old Omar, having just participated in the mass murder of his father,
mother, two sisters and brother during the unprovoked invasion of their
homeland, in breach of the most basic law of civilised peoples.</P>
<P>No true epitaph for them in Britain's famous liberal newspaper; no honest
headline, such as: "This American marine murdered this boy's family".
No photograph of Omar's father, mother, sisters and brother dismembered and
blood-soaked by automatic fire. Versions of the Observer's propaganda picture
have been appearing in the Anglo-American press since the invasion began: tender
cameos of American troops reaching out, kneeling, ministering to their
"liberated" victims.</P>
<P>And where were the pictures from the village of Furat, where 80 men, women
and children were rocketed to death? Apart from the Mirror, where were the
pictures, and footage, of small children holding up their hands in terror while
Bush's thugs forced their families to kneel in the street? Imagine that in a
British high street. It is a glimpse of fascism, and we have a right to see
it.</P>
<P>"To initiate a war of aggression," said the judges in the Nuremberg
trial of the Nazi leadership, "is not only an international crime; it is
the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it
contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole." In stating this
guiding principle of international law, the judges specifically rejected German
arguments of the "necessity" for pre-emptive attacks against other
countries.</P>
<P>Nothing Bush and Blair, their cluster-bombing boys and their media court do
now will change the truth of their great crime in Iraq. It is a matter of
record, understood by the majority of humanity, if not by those who claim to
speak for "us". As Denis Halliday said of the Anglo-American embargo
against Iraq, it will "slaughter them in the history books". It was
Halliday who, as assistant secretary general of the United Nations, set up the
"oil for food" programme in Iraq in 1996 and quickly realised that the
UN had become an instrument of "a genocidal attack on a whole
society". He resigned in protest, as did his successor, Hans von Sponeck,
who described "the wanton and shaming punishment of a nation".</P>
<P>I have mentioned these two men often in these pages, partly because their
names and their witness have been airbrushed from most of the media. I well
remember Jeremy Paxman bellowing at Halliday on Newsnight shortly after his
resignation: "So are you an apologist for Saddam Hussein?" That helped
set the tone for the travesty of journalism that now daily, almost gleefully,
treats criminal war as sport. In a leaked e-mail Roger Mosey, the head of BBC
Television News, described the BBC's war coverage as "extraordinary - it
almost feels like World Cup football when you go from Um Qasr to another theatre
of war somewhere else and you're switching between battles".</P>
<P>He is talking about murder. That is what the Americans do, and no one will
say so, even when they are murdering journalists. They bring to this one-sided
attack on a weak and mostly defenceless people the same racist, homicidal intent
I witnessed in Vietnam, where they had a whole programme of murder called
Operation Phoenix. This runs through all their foreign wars, as it does through
their own divided society. Take your pick of the current onslaught. Last
weekend, a column of their tanks swept heroically into Baghdad and out again.
They murdered people along the way. They blew off the limbs of women and the
scalps of children. Hear their voices on the unedited and unbroadcast videotape:
"We shot the shit out of it." Their victims overwhelm the morgues and
hospitals - hospitals already denuded of drugs and painkillers by America's
deliberate withholding of $5.4bn in humanitarian goods, approved by the Security
Council and paid for by Iraq. The screams of children undergoing amputation with
minimal anaesthetic qualify as the BBC man's "sound of freedom".</P>
<P>Heller would appreciate the sideshows. Take the British helicopter pilot who
came to blows with an American who had almost shot him down. "Don't you
know the Iraqis don't have a fucking air force?" he shouted. Did this pilot
reflect on the truth he had uttered, on the whole craven enterprise against a
stricken third world country and his own part in this crime? I doubt it. The
British have been the most skilled at delusion and lying. By any standard, the
Iraqi resistance to the high-tech Anglo-American machine was heroic. With
ancient tanks and mortars, small arms and desperate ambushes, they panicked the
Americans and reduced the British military class to one of its specialities -
mendacious condescension.</P>
<P>The Iraqis who fight are "terrorists", "hoodlums",
"pockets of Ba'ath Party loyalists", "kamikaze" and
"feds" (fedayeen). They are not real people: cultured and cultivated
people. They are Arabs. This vocabulary of dishonour has been faithfully
parroted by those enjoying it all from the broadcasting box. "What do you
make of Basra?" asked the Today programme's presenter of a former general
embedded in the studio. "It's hugely encouraging, isn't it?" he
replied. Their mutual excitement, like their plummy voices, are their bond.</P>
<P>On the same day, in a Guardian letter, Tim Llewellyn, a former BBC Middle
East correspondent, pointed us to evidence of this "hugely
encouraging" truth - fleeting pictures on Sky News of British soldiers
smashing their way into a family home in Basra, pointing their guns at a woman
and manhandling, hooding and manacling young men, one of whom was shown
quivering with terror. "Is Britain 'liberating' Basra by taking political
prisoners and, if so, based on what sort of intelligence, given Britain's long
unfamiliarity with this territory and its inhabitants . . . The least this ugly
display will do is remind Arabs and Muslims everywhere of our Anglo-Saxon double
standards - we can show your prisoners in . . . degrading positions, but don't
you dare show ours.".</P>
<P>Roger Mosey says the suffering of Um Qasr is "like World Cup
football". There are 40,000 people in Um Qasr; desperate refugees are
streaming in and the hospitals are overflowing. All this misery is due entirely
to the "coalition" invasion and the British siege, which forced the
United Nations to withdraw its humanitarian aid staff. Cafod, the Catholic
relief agency, which has sent a team to Um Qasr, says the standard humanitarian
quota for water in emergency situations is 20 litres per person per day. Cafod
reports hospitals entirely without water and people drinking from contaminated
wells. According to the World Health Organisation, 1.5 million people across
southern Iraq are without water, and epidemics are inevitable. And what are
"our boys" doing to alleviate this, apart from staging childish,
theatrical occupations of presidential palaces, having fired shoulder-held
missiles into a civilian city and dropped cluster bombs?</P>
<P>A British colonel laments to his "embedded" flock that "it is
difficult to deliver aid in an area that is still an active battle zone".
The logic of his own words mocks him. If Iraq was not a battle zone, if the
British and the Americans were not defying international law, there would be no
difficulty in delivering aid.</P>
<P>There is something especially disgusting about the lurid propaganda coming
from these PR-trained British officers, who have not a clue about Iraq and its
people. They describe the liberation they are bringing from "the world's
worst tyranny", as if anything, including death by cluster bomb or
dysentery, is better than "life under Saddam". The inconvenient truth
is that, according to Unicef, the Ba'athists built the most modern health
service in the Middle East. No one disputes the grim, totalitarian nature of the
regime; but Saddam Hussein was careful to use the oil wealth to create a modern
secular society and a large and prosperous middle class. Iraq was the only Arab
country with a 90 per cent clean water supply and with free</P>
<P>education. All this was smashed by the Anglo-American embargo. When the
embargo was imposed in 1990, the Iraqi civil service organised a food
distribution system that the UN's Food and Agriculture Organisation described as
"a model of efficiency . . . undoubtedly saving Iraq from famine".
That, too, was smashed when the invasion was launched.</P>
<P>Why are the British yet to explain why their troops have to put on protective
suits to recover dead and wounded in vehicles hit by American "friendly
fire"? The reason is that the Americans are using solid uranium coated on
missiles and tank shells. When I was in southern Iraq, doctors estimated a
sevenfold increase in cancers in areas where depleted uranium was used by the
Americans and British in the 1991 war. Under the subsequent embargo, Iraq,
unlike Kuwait, has been denied equipment with which to clean up its contaminated
battlefields. The hospitals in Basra have wards overflowing with children with
cancers of a variety not seen before 1991. They have no painkillers; they are
fortunate if they have aspirin.</P>
<P>With honourable exceptions (Robert Fisk; al-Jazeera), little of this has been
reported. Instead, the media have performed their preordained role as imperial
America's "soft power": rarely identifying "our" crime, or
misrepresenting it as a struggle between good intentions and evil incarnate.
This abject professional and moral failure now beckons the unseen dangers of
such an epic, false victory, inviting its repetition in Iran, Korea, Syria,
Cuba, China.</P>
<P>George Bush has said: "It will be no defence to say: 'I was just
following orders.'" He is correct. The Nuremberg judges left in no doubt
the right of ordinary soldiers to follow their conscience in an illegal war of
aggression. Two British soldiers have had the courage to seek status as
conscientious objectors. They face court martial and imprisonment; yet virtually
no questions have been asked about them in the media. George Galloway has been
pilloried for asking the same question as Bush, and he and Tam Dalyell, Father
of the House of Commons, are being threatened with withdrawal of the Labour
whip.</P>
<P>Dalyell, 41 years a member of the Commons, has said the Prime Minister is a
war criminal who should be sent to The Hague. This is not gratuitous; on the
prima facie evidence, Blair is a war criminal, and all those who have been, in
one form or another, accessories should be reported to the International
Criminal Court. Not only did they promote a charade of pretexts few now take
seriously, they brought terrorism and death to Iraq. A growing body of legal
opinion around the world agrees that the new court has a duty, as Eric Herring
of Bristol University wrote, to investigate "not only the regime, but also
the UN bombing and sanctions which violated the human rights of Iraqis on a vast
scale". Add the present piratical war, whose spectre is the uniting of Arab
nationalism with militant Islam. The whirlwind sown by Blair and Bush is just
beginning. Such is the magnitude of their crime.</P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>