Greenwald writes: "Shortly after the news broke of the U.S. attack on a
Doctors without Borders (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, there was
abundant evidence suggesting (not proving, but suggesting) that the attack
was no accident."
Médecins Sans Frontières medical personnel treat civilians injured following
an offensive against Taliban militants by Afghan and coalition forces, at
the MSF hospital in Kunduz. (photo: MSF/AFP/Getty Images)
US Journalists Who Instantly Exonerated Their Government of the Kunduz
Hospital Attack, Declaring It an "Accident"
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
07 November 15
Shortly after the news broke of the U.S. attack on a Doctors without Borders
(MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, there was abundant evidence
suggesting (not proving, but suggesting) that the attack was no accident:
(1) MSF repeatedly told the U.S. military about the precise coordinates of
its hospital, which had been operating for years; (2) the Pentagons story
about what happened kept changing, radically, literally on a daily basis;
(3) the exact same MSF hospital had been invaded by Afghan security forces
three months earlier, demonstrating hostility toward the facility; (4) the
attack lasted more than 30 minutes and involved multiple AC-130 gunship
flyovers, even as MSF officials frantically pleaded with the U.S. military
to stop; and, most compellingly of all, (5) Afghan officials from the start
said explicitly that the hospital was a valid and intended target due to the
presence of Taliban fighters as patients.
Since then, the evidence that the attack was intentional has only grown. Two
weeks ago, AP reported that the Army Green Berets who requested the Oct. 3
airstrike on the Doctors without Borders trauma center in Afghanistan were
aware it was a functioning hospital but believed it was under Taliban
control. Last night, NBC News cited a new MSF report with this headline:
U.S. Plane Shot Victims Fleeing Doctors Without Borders Hospital: Charity.
As the New York Times put it yesterday, the hospital was among the most
brightly lit buildings in Kunduz on the night a circling American gunship
destroyed it and spread across the hospital roof was a large white and red
flag reading Médecins Sans Frontières. For reasons that are increasingly
understandable, the Obama administration is still adamantly refusing MSFs
demand for an independent investigation into what happened and why.
All of this led MSFs general director, Christopher Stokes, to say this at a
news conference yesterday in Kabul:
As my colleague Murtaza Hussain reported yesterday, Stokes added: From what
we are seeing now, this action is illegal in the laws of war.
This was not the first time top officials from the universally respected MSF
have said this. Three weeks ago, Stokes said in an interview with AP that
the extensive, quite precise destruction of this hospital
doesnt
indicate a mistake. The hospital was repeatedly hit. He added that all
indications point to a grave breach of international humanitarian law, and
therefore a war crime. Thats all indications point to a war crime.
The point here isnt that its been definitively proven that the U.S. attack
was deliberate. What exactly happened here and why wont be known, as MSF
itself has said, until there is a full-scale, truly independent
investigation precisely what the U.S. government is steadfastly blocking.
But MSFs Stokes is absolutely correct to say that all of the evidence that
is known means that mistake is quite hard to believe at this stage as an
explanation and that the compilation of all known evidence points to
a
war crime.
Nonetheless, many U.S. journalists immediately, repeatedly and
authoritatively declared this to have been an accident or a mistake
despite not having the slightest idea whether that was true, and worse, in
the face of substantial evidence that it was false.
What possible motivation would the U.S. government have for submitting to an
independent investigation when as usual it has an army of
super-patriotic, uber-nationalistic journalists eager to act as its lawyers
and insist, despite the evidence, that Americans could not possibly be
guilty of anything other than a terrible mistake? Indeed, the overriding
sentiment among many U.S. journalists is that their country and government
are so inherently Good that they could not possibly do anything so bad on
purpose. Any bad acts are mindlessly presumed to be terrible, uintended
mistakes tragically made by Good, Well-Intentioned People (Americans). Other
Bad Countries do bad things on purpose. But Americans are good and do not.
They cling to this self-flattering belief so vehemently that they not only
refused to entertain the possibility that the U.S. government might have
done something bad on purpose, but they scornfully mock anyone who questions
the official claim of mistake. When youre lucky enough as a government
and military to have hordes of journalists so subservient and nationalistic
that they do and say this to exonerate you fully before knowing any
facts, why would you ever feel the need to submit to someone elses
investigation?
Christian Science Monitor
Vox
Vox headline. (photo: The Intercept/Vox)
The New Yorker
The New Yorker headline. (photo: The Intercept/The New Yorker)
Boston Globe
American Journalism is the ultimate accountability-free profession, as
demonstrated by the fact that every journalist not named Judy Miller who
uncritically regurgitated and advocated false government claims about Iraq
not only paid no price but has thrived. So needless to say, none of the
people who instantly acquitted the U.S. in the Kunduz hospital attack have
in any way accounted for their early proclamations or attempted to reconcile
them with all of this evidence.
At Vox, Max surely-the-result-of-some-terrible-human-error Fisher left it
to his colleague Zach Beauchamp to admit that a new AP report doesnt
prove, conclusively, that the U.S. knowingly and intentionally bombed a
hospital. But it does raise some serious questions about who knew what about
the Kunduz hospital (there was, of course, no reference to Fishers prior
verdict of innocence, nor Kleins announcement on Twitter that this was all
an accident). Andersons New Yorker colleague Amy Davidson had published
an article asking all the right questions before he declared it unlikely
to have been intentionally criminal. Meanwhile, as evidence of
intentionality grew, Murphy simply abandoned his prior trust me decree
that this was all an accident (wed never do this on purpose) and seamlessly
switched to what certainly could be read to be justification (yeah, OK, we
did it and we were right to do it):
(The claim that the hospital had been taken over by Taliban fighters has
been repeatedly debunked, including by MSF just yesterday; they also quite
rightly pronounced themselves disgusted at the suggestion that even if it
were true that Taliban fighters were among the patients, razing their
hospital would be justified.)
It is, of course, pleasing to view your own tribe as inherently superior. It
feels nice to believe that your own side is so intrinsically moral, so
Exceptional, that one needs no evidence or investigation to know
immediately that any bad acts are unintended. It is a massive relief to know
that things like war crimes and intentionally bombing structures protected
by the Geneva Conventions can only be done by the countries declared by your
government to be adversaries, but never by your own government.
But as comforting, uplifting and self-affirming as that worldview is, it is
literally the exact antithesis of the skepticism that the most basic
precepts of journalism require. Declaring your own government innocent when
it repeatedly bombs a well-known, well-established hospital filled with
doctors, nurses and patients before you have the slightest idea what
actually happened, and in the face of all kinds of evidence in conflict with
such assurances of innocence is inexcusable for all sorts of obvious
reasons. Very unfortunately, this sort of hyper-nationalism and reflexively
tribalistic self-love is pervasive in American journalism Americans do not
do such things which is why the U.S. government knows that it can engage
in such acts without any accountability or even pressure to allow an
independent investigation.
UPDATE: A couple more horrible examples:
Richard Cohen, the Washington Post, October 7:
To think the United States purposely bombed a hospital is evidence of a
mindset that suggests such deep hostility toward America that [MSF
International President Joanne] Liu ought to go work somewhere else.
I
dont for a minute think that the United States was involved in war crime
here unless the definition of a crime is so stretched as to encompass a
horrible accident.
Ross Baker, USA Today, October 11:
Doctors Without Borders cheapens the value of its own indignation by raising
what seems to have been a deadly mistake to the level of a wanton moral
transgression, but the Pentagon also shouldnt simply dismiss it with the
default explanation that it was just the fog of war. It was a bloody
blunder, but not, by any reasonable definition, a war crime.
I genuinely dont understand why the White House or Pentagon bothers to
spend money on official spokespeople. Its such a redundant function given
how many in the U.S. media eagerly perform that role.
UPDATE II: Political Science professor Corey Robin directed me to this
article in The Nation by Greg Gradin and said: Right after Kunduz,
historian showed deliberate targeting of hospitals was policy for U.S. in
Cambodia. But as I replied to Professor Robin, and as all these intrepid
journalists have taught us: Nobody needs to read this. We all KNOW that
**Americans** dont do things like this. Only Bad Countries & People do.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not valid.
Médecins Sans Frontières medical personnel treat civilians injured following
an offensive against Taliban militants by Afghan and coalition forces, at
the MSF hospital in Kunduz. (photo: MSF/AFP/Getty Images)
https://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/u-s-journalists-who-instantly-exonerated
-their-government-of-the-kunduz-hospital-attack-declaring-it-an-accident/htt
ps://theintercept.com/2015/11/06/u-s-journalists-who-instantly-exonerated-th
eir-government-of-the-kunduz-hospital-attack-declaring-it-an-accident/
US Journalists Who Instantly Exonerated Their Government of the Kunduz
Hospital Attack, Declaring It an "Accident"
By Glenn Greenwald, The Intercept
07 November 15
hortly after the news broke of the U.S. attack on a Doctors without Borders
(MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, there was abundant evidence
suggesting (not proving, but suggesting) that the attack was no accident:
(1) MSF repeatedly told the U.S. military about the precise coordinates of
its hospital, which had been operating for years; (2) the Pentagons story
about what happened kept changing, radically, literally on a daily basis;
(3) the exact same MSF hospital had been invaded by Afghan security forces
three months earlier, demonstrating hostility toward the facility; (4) the
attack lasted more than 30 minutes and involved multiple AC-130 gunship
flyovers, even as MSF officials frantically pleaded with the U.S. military
to stop; and, most compellingly of all, (5) Afghan officials from the start
said explicitly that the hospital was a valid and intended target due to the
presence of Taliban fighters as patients.
Since then, the evidence that the attack was intentional has only grown. Two
weeks ago, AP reported that the Army Green Berets who requested the Oct. 3
airstrike on the Doctors without Borders trauma center in Afghanistan were
aware it was a functioning hospital but believed it was under Taliban
control. Last night, NBC News cited a new MSF report with this headline:
U.S. Plane Shot Victims Fleeing Doctors Without Borders Hospital: Charity.
As the New York Times put it yesterday, the hospital was among the most
brightly lit buildings in Kunduz on the night a circling American gunship
destroyed it and spread across the hospital roof was a large white and red
flag reading Médecins Sans Frontières. For reasons that are increasingly
understandable, the Obama administration is still adamantly refusing MSFs
demand for an independent investigation into what happened and why.
All of this led MSFs general director, Christopher Stokes, to say this at a
news conference yesterday in Kabul:
As my colleague Murtaza Hussain reported yesterday, Stokes added: From what
we are seeing now, this action is illegal in the laws of war.
This was not the first time top officials from the universally respected MSF
have said this. Three weeks ago, Stokes said in an interview with AP that
the extensive, quite precise destruction of this hospital
doesnt
indicate a mistake. The hospital was repeatedly hit. He added that all
indications point to a grave breach of international humanitarian law, and
therefore a war crime. Thats all indications point to a war crime.
The point here isnt that its been definitively proven that the U.S. attack
was deliberate. What exactly happened here and why wont be known, as MSF
itself has said, until there is a full-scale, truly independent
investigation precisely what the U.S. government is steadfastly blocking.
But MSFs Stokes is absolutely correct to say that all of the evidence that
is known means that mistake is quite hard to believe at this stage as an
explanation and that the compilation of all known evidence points to
a
war crime.
Nonetheless, many U.S. journalists immediately, repeatedly and
authoritatively declared this to have been an accident or a mistake
despite not having the slightest idea whether that was true, and worse, in
the face of substantial evidence that it was false.
What possible motivation would the U.S. government have for submitting to an
independent investigation when as usual it has an army of
super-patriotic, uber-nationalistic journalists eager to act as its lawyers
and insist, despite the evidence, that Americans could not possibly be
guilty of anything other than a terrible mistake? Indeed, the overriding
sentiment among many U.S. journalists is that their country and government
are so inherently Good that they could not possibly do anything so bad on
purpose. Any bad acts are mindlessly presumed to be terrible, uintended
mistakes tragically made by Good, Well-Intentioned People (Americans). Other
Bad Countries do bad things on purpose. But Americans are good and do not.
They cling to this self-flattering belief so vehemently that they not only
refused to entertain the possibility that the U.S. government might have
done something bad on purpose, but they scornfully mock anyone who questions
the official claim of mistake. When youre lucky enough as a government
and military to have hordes of journalists so subservient and nationalistic
that they do and say this to exonerate you fully before knowing any
facts, why would you ever feel the need to submit to someone elses
investigation?
Christian Science Monitor
Vox
Vox headline. (photo: The Intercept/Vox)
The New Yorker
The New Yorker headline. (photo: The Intercept/The New Yorker)
Boston Globe
American Journalism is the ultimate accountability-free profession, as
demonstrated by the fact that every journalist not named Judy Miller who
uncritically regurgitated and advocated false government claims about Iraq
not only paid no price but has thrived. So needless to say, none of the
people who instantly acquitted the U.S. in the Kunduz hospital attack have
in any way accounted for their early proclamations or attempted to reconcile
them with all of this evidence.
At Vox, Max surely-the-result-of-some-terrible-human-error Fisher left it
to his colleague Zach Beauchamp to admit that a new AP report doesnt
prove, conclusively, that the U.S. knowingly and intentionally bombed a
hospital. But it does raise some serious questions about who knew what about
the Kunduz hospital (there was, of course, no reference to Fishers prior
verdict of innocence, nor Kleins announcement on Twitter that this was all
an accident). Andersons New Yorker colleague Amy Davidson had published
an article asking all the right questions before he declared it unlikely
to have been intentionally criminal. Meanwhile, as evidence of
intentionality grew, Murphy simply abandoned his prior trust me decree
that this was all an accident (wed never do this on purpose) and seamlessly
switched to what certainly could be read to be justification (yeah, OK, we
did it and we were right to do it):
(The claim that the hospital had been taken over by Taliban fighters has
been repeatedly debunked, including by MSF just yesterday; they also quite
rightly pronounced themselves disgusted at the suggestion that even if it
were true that Taliban fighters were among the patients, razing their
hospital would be justified.)
It is, of course, pleasing to view your own tribe as inherently superior. It
feels nice to believe that your own side is so intrinsically moral, so
Exceptional, that one needs no evidence or investigation to know
immediately that any bad acts are unintended. It is a massive relief to know
that things like war crimes and intentionally bombing structures protected
by the Geneva Conventions can only be done by the countries declared by your
government to be adversaries, but never by your own government.
But as comforting, uplifting and self-affirming as that worldview is, it is
literally the exact antithesis of the skepticism that the most basic
precepts of journalism require. Declaring your own government innocent when
it repeatedly bombs a well-known, well-established hospital filled with
doctors, nurses and patients before you have the slightest idea what
actually happened, and in the face of all kinds of evidence in conflict with
such assurances of innocence is inexcusable for all sorts of obvious
reasons. Very unfortunately, this sort of hyper-nationalism and reflexively
tribalistic self-love is pervasive in American journalism Americans do not
do such things which is why the U.S. government knows that it can engage
in such acts without any accountability or even pressure to allow an
independent investigation.
UPDATE: A couple more horrible examples:
Richard Cohen, the Washington Post, October 7:
To think the United States purposely bombed a hospital is evidence of a
mindset that suggests such deep hostility toward America that [MSF
International President Joanne] Liu ought to go work somewhere else.
I
dont for a minute think that the United States was involved in war crime
here unless the definition of a crime is so stretched as to encompass a
horrible accident.
Ross Baker, USA Today, October 11:
Doctors Without Borders cheapens the value of its own indignation by raising
what seems to have been a deadly mistake to the level of a wanton moral
transgression, but the Pentagon also shouldnt simply dismiss it with the
default explanation that it was just the fog of war. It was a bloody
blunder, but not, by any reasonable definition, a war crime.
I genuinely dont understand why the White House or Pentagon bothers to
spend money on official spokespeople. Its such a redundant function given
how many in the U.S. media eagerly perform that role.
UPDATE II: Political Science professor Corey Robin directed me to this
article in The Nation by Greg Gradin and said: Right after Kunduz,
historian showed deliberate targeting of hospitals was policy for U.S. in
Cambodia. But as I replied to Professor Robin, and as all these intrepid
journalists have taught us: Nobody needs to read this. We all KNOW that
**Americans** dont do things like this. Only Bad Countries & People do.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
