MEDIA ALERT: THE TRAGIC BLINDNESS OF THE EMBEDDED BBC

White Phosphorus, Fallujah And Unreported Atrocities

Helen Boaden, director of BBC News, said earlier this year:

"We are committed to evidence-based journalism. We have not been able to establish that the US used banned chemical weapons and committed other atrocities against civilians in Falluja last November. Inquiries on the ground at the time and subsequently indicate that their use is unlikely to have occurred.” (Email forwarded to Media Lens, July 13, 2005)

Sadly, their use has occurred, as the Pentagon has now been forced to admit.

Readers may recall from previous media alerts that we did not know then whether unusual or banned weapons – including cluster bombs, depleted uranium, napalm, white phosphorus and poisonous gas – had been used in Fallujah, or whether atrocities had been committed by ‘coalition’ forces against civilians. We did know, however, that the BBC had consistently overlooked credible testimony from multiple sources suggesting such weapons had been used and such acts had taken place.

Last November, Fallujah was placed under “a strict night-time shoot-to-kill curfew” with “anyone spotted in the soldiers’ night vision sights... shot”; male refugees were prevented from leaving the combat zone; a health centre was bombed killing 60 patients and support staff; refugees claimed that “a large number of people, including children, were killed by American snipers” and that the US had used cluster bombs and phosphorus weapons in the offensive.

Recent US military offensives in Ramadi, Baghdadi, Hit, Haditha, Mosul, Qaim, Tal Afar and elsewhere, have likely also killed many civilians and created thousands more refugees. (For sources and further details see: www.rememberfallujah.org/why.htm)

Speaking on condition of anonymity for fear of US military reprisal, a high-ranking Red Cross official estimated that “at least 800 civilians” were killed in the first 9 days of the November 2004 assault on Fallujah. (Dahr Jamail, ‘800 Civilians Feared Dead in Fallujah,’ Inter Press Service, November 16, 2004)

IRINnews.org, the news service of the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, reported that the emergency team from Fallujah’s main hospital recovered more than 700 bodies from rubble where houses and shops had stood. Dr Rafa'ah al-Iyssaue, the hospital director, said:

“It was really distressing picking up dead bodies from destroyed homes, especially children. It is the most depressing situation I have ever been in since the war started.”

Dr al-Iyssaue added that more than 550 of the 700 dead were women and children. He said a very small number of men were found in these places and most were elderly. (IRINnews.org, ‘Death toll in Fallujah rising, doctors say,’ January 4, 2005; www.irinnews.org/report.asp?ReportID=44904&SelectRegion=Middle_East&SelectCountry=IRAQ)

The Study Centre for Human Rights and Democracy, based in Fallujah, estimates the total number of people killed in the city during the assault at 4,000 to 6,000, most of them civilians. Mass graves were dug on the outskirts of the city for thousands of the bodies. (Dahr Jamail, ‘Life Goes On in Fallujah's Rubble,’ Inter Press Service, November 23, 2005)

Embedded BBC Saw Nothing, Heard Nothing, Reported Nothing

In light of the Pentagon’s admission that US forces +did+ use white phosphorus (WP) as an offensive weapon, the BBC needs to explain its earlier silence. The corporation is now trying to absolve itself by claiming that not one single report until now was credible or worth reporting. It has been revealed that UK forces also have WP in their arsenal, and have been trained to use it as a weapon. (Sean Rayment, ‘Tim Collins trained troops to fight with white phosphorus,’ Sunday Telegraph, November 20, 2005)

Unprompted by Media Lens but disturbed by the BBC’s bias in covering the invasion and occupation, members of the public have been contacting the corporation. Several complainants cited our earlier media alerts (e.g. ‘BBC Still Ignoring Evidence of War Crimes’)

Many independent researchers, including the London-based filmmaker and author Gabriele Zamparini (www.thecatsdream.com/blog), have also been pursuing developments. As a result, the pressure on mainstream media to report and analyse what is now in the public domain has intensified.

No doubt mindful of this pressure, BBC News led with the WP revelations on its flagship 10 O’Clock News bulletin on November 15, 2005. BBC correspondent Paul Wood, who had been embedded with US forces in Fallujah, asserted that: "this deadly substance [WP] was fired directly at trenches full of insurgents". This may be correct, but it is also incomplete. As we reported in previous media alerts, there is ample evidence of devastating weaponry, including WP, being deployed in built-up areas (not just "trenches") where civilians (not just "insurgents") were sheltering.

Wood told anchor Jeremy Paxman on the BBC’s Newsnight programme that same evening:

"Many in the Arab world, some here [in the UK] who campaigned against the war on Iraq, believe that a massacre of civilians took place inside Fallujah. I didn't see evidence of that myself. In Fallujah over the summer, I spoke to doctors at the hospital there who discounted these allegations." (Newsnight, November 15, 2005)

We asked Wood for details of his research in Fallujah. He told us that he “had long conversations” with hospital doctors. By Wood’s own admission only one of these “had been in Falluja right throughout the November campaign”. He added: “Others had arrived later, but I thought it would be good to ask them about the various atrocity allegations anyway, to see how widely they were believed in the town, even if they had no proof.”

According to Wood: “All of them dismissed allegations of chemical weapons use, or of the use of dispersal weapons in general.” (Email forwarded to David Cromwell via Newsnight editor Peter Barron, November 17, 2005)

However, the US has now been forced to admit that it did use white phosphorus as an offensive weapon in Fallujah. We also now know, thanks to the unearthing of a US intelligence document by researchers using the internet, that the US recognises that white phosphorus +is+ a chemical weapon (Peter Popham and Anne Penketh, ‘US intelligence classified white phosphorus as "chemical weapon" ', The Independent, November 23, 2005). And, as Dahr Jamail has reported over many months, cluster bombs and depleted uranium were also used in the assault on Fallujah. (http://dahrjamailiraq.com)

We asked Wood why he had reported not one of the many credible accounts of atrocities in Fallujah, and elsewhere in Iraq – many of which had been presented to the World Tribunal on Iraq held in Istanbul. (See ‘The Mysterious Case of the Disappearing World Tribunal on Iraq')

Wood told us that he had spoken to independent reporter Dahr Jamail “to try to chase down his leads.” He added: “Dahr told me they were all too scared to talk (even though they are now in Jordan) or that he otherwise couldn't track them down. Fair enough -- they are his contacts and he might have a number of valid reasons for not handing them on." (Email forwarded to David Cromwell via Newsnight editor Peter Barron, November 17, 2005)

Dahr Jamail disputes this:

“I am rather surprised that Mr. Wood would allege here that I've not provided him contacts he requested. As I told him on the phone when we spoke of this, I gave him all the contacts I had emails/phones for.” Jamail added: “Why does Mr. Wood think I have withheld contact details?” (Email to David Cromwell, November 19, 2005)

Jamail again:

“Perhaps Mr. Wood wouldn't find it necessary to question another journalist's sources (mine were first-hand interviews), and would be able to obtain some of these reports himself, if he were not embedded with the military forces which destroyed the city of Fallujah.” (Email to David Cromwell, November 20, 2005)

Wood stated on Newsnight that he had only seen WP used for illumination purposes. He did note, however, that the US admission of WP use “does to some appear to be confirmation of the much wider allegations that civilians were killed in large numbers inside Fallujah."

And so, once again, the BBC dismisses as mere “allegations” the copious evidence of atrocities provided by humanitarian workers, doctors, refugees and other credible sources.

A new BBC online piece written by Wood excuses himself and the BBC with a few carefully chosen words:

"We didn't at the time, last November, report the use of banned weapons or a massacre because we didn't see this taking place – and since then, we haven't seen credible evidence that this is was [sic] what happened." (Wood, 'Heated debate over white phosphorus,' November 17, 2005; http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4440000/newsid_4441700/4441798.stm)

As we have noted in previous alerts, ‘credible evidence‘ comes from ‘credible sources.’ For mainstream media, this generally means officialdom - including political and military leaders responsible for the use and abuse of chemical weapons, cluster bombs and napalm.

Wood had earlier dismissed reports of such usage because no “reference [was] made to them at the confidential pre-assault military briefings he attended” and because he had not himself witnessed their use. (‘Did BBC ignore weapons claim?’, April 14, 2005; http://news.bbc.co.uk/newswatch/ukfs/hi/newsid_4390000/newsid_4396600/4396641.stm)

This was a remarkable judgement by the BBC and an indictment of the ‘embed’ system of reporting. When we pressed Helen Boaden further, citing more reports of atrocities committed against civilians, she abruptly ended the correspondence:

“I do not believe that further dialogue on this matter will serve a useful purpose.” (Email to David Cromwell, March 21, 2005)

Propagandists For Killing Power

Dirk Adriaensens, executive committee member of the BRussells Tribunal, told us:

“It is not that difficult to find witnesses for what happened to Fallujah. There is ample evidence of the atrocities that took place there. Moreover, it is notable that no embedded 'journalist' reported atrocities committed in hospitals in recent attacks on Haditha, Al Qaim, Tal Afar, etc.” (Email to David Cromwell, November 21, 2005)

One UN report cited by Adriaensens observes that:

“Ongoing military operations, especially in western and northern parts of the country, continue to generate displacement and hardship for thousands of families and to have a devastating effect on the civilian population... The United Nations has been unable to obtain accurate figures concerning civilian losses following such operations but reports received from civil society organizations, medical sources and other monitors indicate that they are significant and include women and children.” (UN Assistance Mission for Iraq, Human Rights Report, 1 August – 31 October, 2005; www422.ssldomain.com/uniraq/documents/HR Report.Oct.Eng final.doc)

As Adriaensens notes, “the UN report is consistent with eyewitness accounts received from sources inside Iraq.” (www.brusselstribunal.org/ArticlesIraq.htm, www.brusselstribunal.org/ArticlesIraq2.htm. Warning: disturbing images)

Other evidence ignored by the BBC includes the work of Mark Manning, an American documentary filmmaker. Manning recorded 25 hours of videotaped interviews with dozens of Iraqi eyewitnesses - men, women and children who had experienced the assault on Fallujah first-hand.

Manning "was told grisly accounts of Iraqi mothers killed in front of their sons, brothers in front of sisters, all at the hands of American soldiers. He also heard allegations of wholesale rape of civilians, by both American and Iraqi troops”. Moreover: “he heard numerous reports of the second siege of Falluja [November 2004] that described American forces deploying - in violation of international treaties - napalm, chemical weapons, phosphorous bombs, and 'bunker-busting' shells laced with depleted uranium”. (Nick Welsh, 'Diving into Fallujah,' Santa Barbara Independent, March 17, 2005; www.independent.com/cover/Cover956.htm)

How much effort have Paul Wood and the BBC made to obtain such evidence? Why have they ignored the work of the World Tribunal on Iraq, the BRussells Tribunal, Iraqi human rights groups and the suffering reported by local doctors, health workers and refugees?

The BBC has relied heavily on embedded reporters, and has broadcast relentless propaganda from those wielding devastating firepower in the assault on Iraq. But precious little has been heard from the ‘unpeople’ - including women, children and the elderly - who have been on the receiving end of such killing power.

The goal of Media Lens is to promote rationality, compassion and respect for others. We strongly urge readers to maintain a polite, non-aggressive and non-abusive tone when writing emails to journalists.

Please write to:

Helen Boaden, director of BBC news
Email: [email protected]

Peter Horrocks, head of BBC television news
Email: [email protected]

Paul Wood, BBC world affairs correspondent
Email: [email protected]

Kevin Bakhurst, editor of the BBC 10 O’Clock News
Email: [email protected]

Peter Barron, editor of Newsnight
Email: [email protected]

Please send copies of all emails to us at: [email protected]

This is a free service. However, financial support is vital. Please
consider donating to Media Lens: www.medialens.org/donate

Visit the Media Lens website: http://www.medialens.org

Witte fosfor en het rookgordijn van het anti-amerikanisme

Lieven De cauter 01 Dec 2005

 1. Antwoord aan Miel Swillens. In mijn korte tekst over witte fosfor (DS 18 november) heb ik helemaal geen 'morele equivalentie' gemaakt tussen het regime van Saddam Hussein en de VS, zoals Miel Swillens beweert in zijn tweede brief naar aanleiding van mijn tekst.(DS 28 november). Dat is een zware beschuldiging. En ze is ook totaal uit de lucht gegrepen. Ik heb het helemaal niet gehad over Saddam Hussein. Ik heb het nooit gehad over Saddam, hoe zou ik dan een morele equivalentie kunnen maken. Het dictatoriale regime van Saddam was voor de Amerikanen maar het laatst ingeroepen alibi voor de oorlog. Eerst waren er de onbestaande link met Al quaeda en dus 9/11 en de onbestaande massavernietigingswapens, remember? Het is in deze oorlog nooit om Saddam gegaan, maar om controle over olie, permanente basissen en geostrategische uitschakeling, of opsplitsing, van een machtig land in het midden-Oosten (wat Israel niet ongenegen is natuurlijk). De kwestie is dat een illegale invasie is gepland op basis van manifeste leugens en dat deze oorlog, als aberrante speerpunt van de 'war on terror', vervolgens alle internationale wetten en regels met de voeten heeft getreden: het maken van kampen buiten elke juridische structuur, systematische martelingen (nu ook aan onze achterdeur in kampen in Europa), fragmentatiebommen tegen burgers, systematische raids op hospitalen en het schieten op ambulances, het uitschakelen van onafhankelijke pers door 'embedded journalism', het gebruik van wapens als verarmd uranium, witte fosfor en napalm (chemische wapens of niet, het zijn gruwelijke massavernietigingswapens, zie daarover de schitterende brief van Jef Van Bauwel, DS 25 november) tegen verzetstrijders én burgers, en tenslotte heuse urbicides ('stadsmoorden') in Fallujah, Al Qaim, Haditha en Tal Afar. Om nog maar te zwijgen van de zogenaamde 'Salvador optie', het gebruik van doodseskaders en terreur tegen de burgerbevolking om het verzet te breken. En dat allemaal in de naam van democratie en 'nationbuilding'! Dat is 'onze' schande. Saddam deed en doet er niet toe. De Amerikaanse regeringen zijn nooit geïnteresseerd geweest in het opheffen van dictaturen, ze hebben er meer geïnstalleerd en de hand boven het hoofd gehouden dan omver geworpen (denk aan Zuid-Amerika). Wat er wel toe doet is dat er intussen naar schatting 285.000 iraqi's zijn omgekomen (schatting van Les Roberts, de man die het Lancet-rapport leidde). Wat er wel toe doet is dat wij samen met de media lange tijd de andere kant hebben opgekeken. 

Tot slot nog even terug naar die zo vreemde 'morele equivalentie'. Over Saddam moet een onafhankelijk Irakese of internationale rechtbank oordelen (die voorwaarden zijn volgens velen in dit proces niet vervuld). Iedereen is het er echter over eens dat het een dictator was.  Maar over de politiek van het Westen die zogenaamd democratisch is, moeten wij, de burgers, oordelen. Deze oorlog is zonder meer een van de grootste misdaden tegen het international recht, het oorlogsrecht, de mensenrechten en zelfs tegen de menselijkheid, sinds de oorlog in Vietnam. En, hij maakt onze wereld daarenboven alleen maar onveiliger. Zelfs in Amerika beginnen ze dat te beseffen. Misschien is het tijd dat u dat ook begint te beseffen, Mr Swillens.

2. Antwoord aan Jean Pascal Zanders. We danken Jean Pascal Zanders, van Bioweapons prevention project, voor zijn preciseringen. Nu weten we wat chemische wapens zijn. Hij schrijft (DS 30.11) dat de definitie berust op ‘het exploiteren van de directe toxische inwerking van een chemisch product op een levend organisme, om militaire objectieven te bereiken’. En voegt eraan toe “dat exploitatie van ‘de irriterende werking van witte fosfor’ wel degelijk onder het begrip chemische oorlogsvoering valt. “Dat laatste scenario zou een ernstige inbreuk zijn op de conventie over chemische wapens betekenen”. Maar dan gaat het fout: “Mij zij geen gegevens bekend die zo’n gebruik van witte fosfor in Fallujah suggeren” en zonder overgang een zeer vreemde gedachtekronkel: ‘vandaar mijn stelling dat witte fosfor geen chemische wapens zijn”. Meneer Zanders heeft duidelijk de reportage van de Rai niet gezien (te zien via onderstaande website), en kent evenmin de vele getuigenissen van dokters en rapporten vanuit Irak (zowel van organisaties als van journalisten). Maar het is ook duidelijk voor wie even nadenkt: het gebruik van witte fosfor in Fallujah, een stad van 100.000 inwoners,  zal ook burgers treffen, inclusief vrouwen en kinderen. Daarenboven heeft witte fosfor geen ‘irriterende werking’, maar brandt door tot op het bot. Dus als we zeker weten dat witte fosfor is gebruikt in een stedelijk gebied en dus ook tegen mensen (verzetslui en burgers), hoe kan u dan in godsnaam besluiten, op basis van uw eigen definities, dat witte fosfor geen chemisch wapen is? Ik hoop dat de redactie een paar foto’s die ik bijstuur durft publiceren. Zowat de gruwelijkste foto’s die ik ken. De Rai documentaire maakt ook duidelijk dat er napalm is gebruikt. En ook tegen burgers.

De reeks urbicides, zoals de getuigenissen van Amerikaanse soldaten in de Rai documentaire en elders bewijzen, maken geen enkel onderscheid tussen burgers en ‘insurgents’ (lees: het in wezen legitieme verzet tegen een illegale invasie en daardoor alleen al niet legitimeerbare bezetting), om de goede reden dat natuurlijk het volk zelf het verzet steunt, of zelfs het verzet is. Vandaar alle pogingen om het verzet te breken door massale aanvallen en heuse vernietigingen van steden, die de geschiedenis zullen ingaan als wandaden. Daarin past ook het afsluiten van water en voedselbevoorrading, wat door de UN bij monde van Jean Ziegler streng is veroordeeld als (nog eens) een oorlogsmisdaad. En vandaar ook de systematische pogingen om het verzet te discrediteren, en af te schilderen als alleen maar een bende terroristen.

Maar in de woorden van John Murtha, de ex-militair en democratisch senator die pleit voor onmiddellijke terugkeer, kan men de waarheid vinden: ‘het aantal aanslagen is van 150 per week naar 772 gestegen’(International Herald Tribune, 29 nov). En daar wringt het schoentje: veruit de meeste aanslagen zijn gericht tegen de bezetter en zijn ‘Vichy-régime’. Maar over die efficiëntie van het verzet vernemen we natuurlijk weinig of niets, alleen de zelfmoordaanslagen tegen burgers, die in feite het verzet mee delegitimeren. Meer en meer verschijnen echter ook in kranten als de IHT berichten over wandaden van doodseskaders die gelieerd zijn met het regime en/of met de bezettingsmacht, die nota bene 3 miljard dollars uittrok voor ‘covered operations’ en het oprichten van deze milities!

Zanders besluit met een soort van hygiënische opmerking dat we moeten vertrekken van de juiste gegevens (zoals ik hierboven heb geschetst, mist hij er kennelijk een paar essentiële) ‘anders wordt het te gemakkelijk voor  degenen met een andere agenda om het debat af te leiden van de kernproblematiek, namelijk de norm tegen het gebruik van zulke wapens te versterken’. Wat een mooie loop maakt met zijn waarschuwing aan het begin dat deze discussie meteen gekleurd was door pro- of anti- amerikanisme.

Nu, de ‘kernproblematiek’ is natuurlijk de oorlog en niet de wapens die erin gebruikt worden. Het is nogal wiedes dat de oorlog in Vietnam een veel grotere misdaad was dan de napalm die er gebruikt werd (want ook met perfect legale wapens zou het een gigantische misdaad gebleven zijn). Natuurlijk maken de onnodige gruweldaden het nog veel erger. En zijn ze ook een argument tegen die oorlog in het bijzonder en tegen oorlog in het algemeen. Dus spaar mij uw gemoraliseer au dessus de la melée, en stel uzelf misschien eens wat ethico-politieke vragen. Bijvoorbeeld over het te pas en te onpas gebruik van het woord anti- Amerikanisme. Het is een geniale uitvinding: wie kritiek heeft op de Israëlische politiek is anti- semiet en naar analogie heeft men een term uitgevonden die ook school maakt, namelijk wie de politiek van de VS veroordeelt, getuigt van anti-Amerikanisme.

Ik zeg het hier nog eens duidelijk: ik hou van Amerika. Van Zappa, Jimi Hendrix, Warhol, Art deco, Skyscrapers, New York, Westerns, film noir en zo kan ik nog even doorgaan. Net zoals ik een enorme bewondering voor en affiniteit heb met de joodse cultuur: van de Kaballa tot Derrida. Zowat al mijn maîtres à penser zijn joden. Maar dat belet niet dat ik het mijn verdomde plicht vind om uitdrukkelijk en met luide stem te protesteren tegen de muur in Israël, tegen ‘het neoconservatieve project voor een nieuwe Amerikaanse eeuw‘ als een cynische doctrine voor militarisering van de planeet en wetteloze wereldoverheersing, tegen de war on terror als planetaire uitzonderingstoestand, tegen de oorlog in Irak (die Bush gisteren nog ‘de speerpunt van de war on terror’ noemde terwijl er geen enkele link met Al Quaeda bestond) en tegen alle misdaden in deze meest misselijke oorlog sinds Vietnam. Dat heeft met anti-Amerikanisme niets, maar dan ook volstrekt niets te maken. Mij zijn ideologische overwegingen en partijpolitieke lijnen helemaal vreemd, maar de onverschilligheid van de Westerse publieke opinie tegenover deze grootschalige misdaden in naam van vrijheid en democratie, verplicht mij ertoe, als intellectueel, mijn stem te verheffen. Het is mijns inziens de plicht van elke burger. Helaas weet deze burger, net als u blijkbaar, niet de helft van de gruwelen die er zich nu, as we speak, afspelen. Jammer.

Maar geleidelijk komt de waarheid aan het licht. En daarom is dit debat over witte fosfor zo belangrijk en daarom dank ik u voor uw preciseringen, hoe volstrekt vreemd ook uw conclusies en afleidingen mogen zijn. Wie is hier ideologisch bevooroordeeld? Zo zou ik mij bijna beginnen afvragen.  

Lieven De Cauter

filosoof (Kuleuven, Rits, Berlage Institute)

initiatiefnemer van het bRussells Tribunal

www.brusselstribunal.org

 Star Wars in Iraq

(16 May 2006)

Majid Al Ghezali They used incredible weapons

Patrick Dillon Experimental weapons?

Majid Al Ghezali Yes… Yes, I think. They shoot the bus. We saw the bus like a cloth, like a wet cloth. It seemed like a Volkswagen, a big bus like a Volkswagen.

This testimony was reported to American filmmaker Patrick Dillon a few weeks after the battle for the airport. The person interviewed, Majid al Ghezali, is a well-known and respected man in Baghdad, who is the first violinist in the city orchestra.

In addition to describing the battle, Majid al Ghezali wanted to show Patrick Dillon the site near the airport where this mysterious weapon was used, along with the traces of fused metal still visible, and the irregularly sized ditches where the cadavers were buried before they were exhumed.

We sought out Majid al Ghezali to hear more details of his story. We met up with him in Amman and he pointed out some inexplicable peculiarities on the bodies of the victims of the battle for the airport.

Majid Al Ghezali Just the head was burnt. In the other parts of the body there wasn’t anything.

Al Ghezali reported that he had seen three passengers in a car, all dead, with their faces and teeth burnt, their clothes intact, and no sign of projectiles.

Majid Al Ghezali There wasn’t any bullet. I saw their teeth, just the teeth, and they had no eyes, all of them, there was nothing on their bodies.

There were other inexplicable aspects: the terrain where the battle took place was dug up by the American military and replaced with other fresh earth; the bodies that were not hit by projectiles had shrunk to just slightly more than one meter in height.

Majid Al Ghezali Except the ones killed by the bullets, most of them became very small. I mean… like that… Something like that.

When we asked Majid what weapon he imagined had been used, he said that he had reached the conclusion that it must have been a laser weapon.

Majid Al Ghezali One year later we heard that they used an update technology, a unique one, like lasers.

We found another disturbing document on the use of mysterious weapons in Iraq, which referred to episodes that took place almost at the same time as those described by Majid al Ghezali.

Saad al Falluji They were 26 in the bus. About 20 of them had no head, the head had been cut, some of them had no arms or no legs. The only unwounded was the driver and really I don’t know how he reach our hospital, because one arm was on his side, one head just beside him. It was a very strange and horrible situation.

In the roof of the car there were parts of the body: intestines, brains, all parts of the body. It was a very very very miserable situation.

Geert Van Moorter (medical doctor working in Iraq during and after the war, as a volunteer for the belgiam NGO Medical Aid fot the Third World) Do you have idea with what kind of weapon the attacked the bus? 

Saad al Falluji We don’t know with what kind of weapon they hit this bus.

Doctor n°2 It seems to be a new weapon

Saad al Falluji Yes, a new weapon

Doctor n°2 They are trying to do experiments on our civilians. Nobody could identify the type of this weapon.

We went to Belgium to find the filmmaker of this sequence, Geert Van Moorter, a doctor working as a volunteer in Iraq.

Geert Van Moorter This footage is taken at the General Teaching Hospital in Hilla, which is about 100 Km from Baghdad, and close to the historical site of Babylon. There I talked with the colleague doctor Saad al Falluji, which is the chief surgeon in that hospital.

Doctor al Falluji said me that the survivors that he operated said him that they did not hear any noise, so there was no explosion to hear, no metal fragments or shrapnels or bullets in their bodies, so they themselves were thinking of some strange kind of weapon which they did not know.    

Let’s hear Dr. Saad el Falluji’s story about this in more detail.

Saad al Falluji This bus was very crowded, they were going from Hilla to Kifil, to find their families, but before they had arrived at the American checkpoint the villagers said to them “return back, return back”. When the bus tried to return back it was shot by the checkpoint.

Geert Van Moorter No gunshot wounds?

Saad al Falluji No, no, I don’t know what it was. We are here 10 surgeons and we couldn’t decide which was the weapon that hit this car.      

Geert Van Moorter But inside the bodies you did not discover ordinary bullets?

Saad al Falluji We didn’t find bullets, but most of the passengers were dead, so they took them immediately to the refrigerator and we couldn’t dissect and see, but in those who were alive we didn’t find any kind of bullet. We didn’t find bullets in their bodyes.

Doctor n°2 Something cutting organs, cutting limbs, attacking the abdomen, attacking the neck and goes out.

Dr. Falluji also ended up speaking about a laser weapon....

Saad al Falluji I don’t think that the bombing, or the cluster bombs, or the laser weapons can bring democracy to our country.

As in any war, the war in Iraq, left us a dreadful gallery of horror - images of mutilations that not even doctors can explain. The witnesses referred to laser weapons, arms with mysterious effects. We do not know what kind of weapons could produce such terrible effects. We tried to learn more about it, by asking for interviews to members of companies manufacturing laser and microwave weapons. Yet, the US Defence Department prevented any information from being released to us. They also did not answer – up to the time the film was edited – the questions we had sent them in order to know weather or not experimental weapons had been tested in Iraq and Afghanistan.

We then reviewed the Pentagon’s media conferences released before the II Gulf War. Willingness to test new weapons emerged form the words of both the Defence Secretary and General Meyers. The questions from the media on direct energy and microwave weapons produced a certain amount of embarrassment.

American journalist Mr. Secretary, can I ask you a question about some of the technology that you're developing to fight the war on terrorists, specifically directed energy and high-powered microwave technology? Do you -- when do you envision that you can weaponize that type of technology?

Donald Rumsfeld Goodness, it is in -- for the most part, the kinds of things you're talking about are in varying early stages. (To the general.) Do you want to -- do you have anything you would add?

General Myers I don't think I would add much. It's -- I think they are in early stages and probably not ready for employment at this point.

Donald Rumsfeld in the normal order of things, when you invest in research and development and begin a developmental project, you don't have any intention or expectations that one would use it. On the other hand, the real world intervenes from time to time, and you reach in there and take something out that is still in a developmental stage, and you might use it. So the -- your question's not answerable. It is -- depends on what happens in the future and how well things move along the track and whether or not someone feels it's appropriate to reach into a development stage and see if something might be useful, as was the case with the unmanned aerial vehicles.

American journalist But you sound like you're willing to experiment with it.

General Myers Yeah, I think that's the point. And I think -- and it's -- and we have, I think, from the beginning of this conflict -- I think General Franks has been very open to looking at new things, if there are new things available, and has been willing to put them into the fight, even before they've been fully wrung out. And I think that's -- not referring to these particular cases of directed energy or high-powered microwaves, but sure. And we will continue to do that.

But what is meant by directed-energy and microwave weapons? We went to ask retired colonel John Alexander, former program director in one of the most important military research laboratories in the United States, Los Alamos National Laboratory.

Retired Colonel John B. Alexander The research and the concepts for directed energy weapons go back many decades. What is happening is that the technology has now advanced sufficiently that now we are starting to see these weapons becoming real.

There are several types of directed energy weapons and basically what they do is they’re known as “speed of light” because they shoot electrons very fast over very long distances. Lasers of course are in the light range, then there are microwave weapons that are operating at other frequencies, but basically they’re beam weapons, which is nothing physical that goes out, because they move electrons, while the kinetic weapons shoot big bullets to go out and physically hit and destroy something. These work because the energy is deposed on the target and causes some effect. 

These images document one of the THEL tests. THEL stands for Tactical High Energy Laser. In the sequence, you can see the laser beam hit and destroy missiles and mortar rounds as they are about to hit the objective.

In this other test we see the laser beam identify and destroy two missiles at the same time.

It doesn’t make any noise and it’s invisible?

Retired Colonel John B. Alexander Some are visible, some are just outside… You have, you know, in the infrared range…

What’s emerging now are laser weapons where the effect is that that of the laser. They can be all burners, in what we call High Energy Lasers, because with the concentrated energy you can literally drill holes, you know, in the target.

Former Pentagon analyst William Arkin, who presently works as a journalist for the Washington Post, also confirms this revolutionary change from kinetic weapons to energy weapons.

William Arkin For thousands of years, the way in which you have killed someone is you have hit them with a sword, a sphere, an arrow, a bullet, a bomb. It’s kinetic, you’re killing them by hitting them. And now, all of the sudden, out of nowhere, you have a completely new physical principle being applied in killing people, in which they don’t know that they’re being killed because their skin and body is being heated by high power microwaves or they are being hit by a laser that would have an instantaneous effect.

There are other types of weapons made with lasers, such as the device we can see in this sequence. The target is not hit by a projectile, but rather by an impulse of energy that manages to bore through the armor of an armored car.

Excluding acoustic weapons, for the moment, the only sign of the use of energy weapons in a war scenario is a laser device known as Zeus. According to official Pentagon sources, military vehicles equipped with this laser device have been used in Afghanistan to explode mines. According to two reliable military information sites – Defense Tech and Defence Industry Daily - at least three such vehicles are being used in Iraq as well and some people report having seen them.

Geert Van Moorter When you showed me the picture of what you described that is a laser weapon, it reminded me that I was talking with some American soldiers, in August 2003, and there was some kind of box on their tank with a blue light like this. I recall it very well not because they said me what it was used for, but because I was teasing a translator, which was an Iraqi female, by telling her “look, with this kind of thing they can look through and see somebody without clothes”. That’s why I remind it, but I have seen for sure this kind of thing on that tank.

William Arkin is one of the American experts who follows the Pentagon activity most closely. So what does Arkin think about the possibility of the use of directed energy weapons in battle in Iraq?

William Arkin You know, there’s even some possibility that high power microwaves have been used experimentally. I think that the panic about IEDs, about Improvised Explosives Devices, has been so bad that if these things are sitting in the lab, I’m sure that they want to get them to Iraq to see whether they are effective. So I can imagine that there could be some, what we call, “black” use of these weapons, but not in any significant way, and certainly not in such a way that one would conclude that they’ve had any impact.

But let’s look at the Pentagon budget figures to see how important the outlay is for directed energy weapons.

William Arkin Right now you have about $50 million a year being spent for non-lethal weapons, you have about another $200 million or so being spent on High Power Microwaves, Active Denial type Systems, you’ve got probably another $100-200 million being spent on “secret”, “black” laser programs, and then you have the big lasers, the High Energy Lasers of the Air force and the other Tactical Lasers. So probably, when you add all of that up, you know the United States are probably spending $½ billion a year right now on directed energy weapons. This is a significant amount of money; this is the size of the Defence Budget of some countries in Europe.       

You might think that energy weapons only pose a danger for the countries involved in a military conflict, but that’s not the case. One particular weapon called the Active Denial System – better known as the pain ray – has been built specifically for use in maintaining public order. Given its claim to be non-lethal and the suffering it produces, this weapon could become a very controversial one.

Retired Colonel John B. Alexander The Active Denial System is a Millimetre Wave System, operates at about 93 GHz. It sends out a beam for a very long distance, and what’s important about it is that when it hits the skin it penetrates only a very slight, for a few millimetres under the skin and it it’s the pain receptors and causes, you know, people to be adverse to the pain.

It hurts, it hurts a lot.

The tests that had been run they were to go for 3 seconds, each individual was given a kill switch and nobody made 3 seconds. The answer to the pain is extremely rapid, and you don’t have to do it very long, I mean, it gets your attention instantly. 

To understand the consequences this new weapon could have for human rights we went to the Empire State Building in Manhattan, home of the offices of Human Rights Watch, one of the most important human rights organizations.

Marc Garlasco We can see the effects of a gun very easily and understand them, but when you cannot see the effect of a weapon because it is not visible and because the science is not very well understood because technology is so new, then it becomes a grieve concern that enrages the states for potential human rights violations and abuses. And that is something that we have to understand about the Active Denial System, that it exists to create pain and is very different in most other non-lethal weapons where the desire is either to immobilize someone or make it so that they cannot walk in the area. With the Active Denial System the main desire is pain, and we have to be very careful because in international law is very clear that devices created solely for the creation of pain can eventually lead to torture and are therefore illegal, and it’s very critical that the United States does a careful legal review of the Active Denial System and is open with their findings. To date they have not been open.

William Arkin Some people say “ooh acoustic weapons, or High Power Microwave weapons, the Active Denial System, we can use it for crowd control…”

What crowd control? What does that mean?

It pretends that anyone in the crowd is eighteen years old, and male and in good health, and we’re just going to shoot these microwaves or shoot these acoustic weapons on this crowd, and it’s going to be carefully calibrated at a power level, in the intensity and at a range to affect all these eighteen years old men in the crowd.

Well, what crowd is made up of just eighteen years old men?

Look at the Intifada, look at any riot in Iraq today: children, women, pregnant women, old people, and so the effect… the effect that you would need in order to have an impact on a healthy male, you target, would be too much for a child or a pregnant woman or an old person.    

Marc Garlasco There’s been a lot of discussion also about the potential for eye damage. They have done some tests on the skin to show that is not harmful, but where is the eye test? And there are concerns raised by scientists about potential harm to the eyes. And we also have concerns about the effects to children, to the infirm, to the elderly… Why are they not producing the data? Why are they not sharing it with us?

As regards the use of the pain ray in the field of war, the military review Defence Industry Daily reports that three Sheriff vehicles were ordered at a price of about 31 million dollars, and that approval has been requested for another 14 vehicles by Brigadier General James Haggin, chief of staff of the multinational forces in Iraq.

Retired Colonel John B. Alexander In my view the next global conflict has already began and we don’t have an understanding of what that conflict looks like. Because of the issues of terrorism for instance the adversaries are going to be I think mixed in with civilian populations. We need weapons that allow us to be able to sort, minimize what they call “collateral casualties”. I think the battlefields are going to be in urban areas.

William Arkin If you look at the Active Denial System, or the High Power Microwaves, or the LRAD, the acoustic weapon, what you see is enthusiasm for those are being displayed by the Us Northern Command, which is the homeland defence command of the United States, or other counterterrorism organizations, which are looking at them like “oh well, maybe, in some special circumstances we can take these secret weapons, boutique weapons, you know, we have only 10 or 20 of them somewhere in a secret place and if we need them we can pull them out and use them in this kind of specialty warfare”. So ironically, even though the Americans would probably think “oh yeah, special new weapon, it would make sense because Iraq is such a mess and maybe we can do something to turn that corner in some way with the use of this weapon, the truth is that the only real way in which they, the military, sees the prospects for the deployment of these is in their domestic use. And you know quite well… that if the United States adopts these weapons for their domestic defence… Nato in Italy are not far behind…