Unjust – and unwise
Anne emails, “Of course what happened in London was terrible but my concern is over its reporting” – or, in a link sent by Andy, “over-hyped coverage”.
She compared it with the lack of emotive language in The Independent’s coverage this week of a white supremacist charged with stabbing of a 66-year-old black man in Manhattan. The NYPD said that the young suspect has a deep-seated hatred of black people and had travelled from Maryland to New York to target and kill black men. Was he not a terrorist? But he was not described as such.
No buildings were flood lit, no sensational description of the killings was given
Then she pointed out that 30 were killed in Syria due to US air attack on a school earlier this week and last week at least 46 people, most of them civilians, were killed and dozens more injured in an air strike on a mosque in Aleppo.
http://www.siasat.com/news/syria-33-dead-us-led-coalition-air-strike-1157431/ (March 23rd report)
Some lives are more equal than others . . .
The recommended article by Simon Jenkins (below, right) had a more pragmatic concern. It opened: “Wednesday’s assault was a crime. The last thing we needed was our politicians and media hysterically exaggerating it . . . The over-hyped coverage of the Westminster attack will only encourage others”.
Far more are killed & injured by cars (Andy now adds, gov stats: “There were 24,620 people killed or seriously injured in the year ending June 2016 – not much outrage there”).
He cited the ‘normal’ mode of reporting deaths by knifing in London each year, usually by those who are enraged or mentally deranged, adding “Yet more are run down by cars” and pleads:
“Don’t fill pages of newspapers and hours of television and radio with words like fear, menace, horror, maniac, monster.”
“Wednesday’s assault different was instantly subjected to an avalanche of supposition and speculation . . . Without a shred of evidence, and no “claimed responsibility”, the airwaves and press were flooded with assumptions that it was ‘Isis-inspired’. It was squeezed for every conceivable ounce of sensation and emotion”. Jenkins wisely recommends that even if this had indeed been “terrorist” act and not that of a lone madman, the way to react is to treat it as a crime:
- Don’t speculate when you know such speculation will cause alarm.
- Don’t let Downing Street summon Cobra and drag the home secretary back from foreign parts.
- Don’t flood central London with hundreds of men with machine guns.
- Don’t have the police issue interminable empty statements
- Don’t fill pages of newspapers and hours of television and radio with words like fear, menace, horror, maniac, monster.
- Don’t let the mayor rush into print, screaming “don’t panic”.
- Don’t have the media trawl the world for pundits to speculate on “what Isis wants” and “how hard it is to protect ourselves from attack”.
- Don’t present London as a horror movie set.
- Don’t crave a home-grown Osama bin Laden.
- And don’t pretend you are “carrying on as usual” when you are doing the precise opposite.
After referring to the money and jobs lost by this week’s reckless coverage, the liberties the cabinet will curtail, or the million-pound contracts the security-industrial complex will squeeze from terrorised civil servants and ministers, Jenkins ends:
“The actions of the authorities and the media in response to Wednesday have ramped up the hysteria of terror. This was ostensibly a random act by a lone player without access even to a gun. To over-publicise and exaggerate such crimes is to be an accomplice after the act. London’s response to the Westminster attack is an open invitation to every crazed malcontent to try it again”.
Speaking in Manchester on Wednesday, the prime minister accused the Labour leader of holding a “Britain-hating ideology.” He suggested that Corbyn thought the death of Osama bin Laden a “tragedy,” rather than repeating his precise idea, which was that bin Laden’s extra-judicial execution without trial was a tragedy. A petition demanding that Cameron retract is being circulated.
David Cameron’s attack on Jeremy Corbyn is likely to be ineffective – and indeed to strengthen his support base.
Every time these dubious characters make some charge against the Labour leader, thousands more are recruited.
Because, at long last, the LabCon regime has been rumbled.
The general public has woken up to the corrupt nature of their elected parliament, with the exposure of relatively minor peccadilloes – claiming unmerited expenses, seeking cash for questions – to serious but legal corruption. This sees senior MPs powerfully influenced by large corporations which offer them non-executive directorships and/or retirement positions and then make decisions which increase their benefactors’ profits, rather than the common good.
Ordinary people try to make ends meet as these spivs use taxpayers’ money to:
- promote the global casino with commodities trading,
- subsidise trade in weapons,
- sell off the country’s assets and utilities,
- privatise health and local government and
- make the poorest pay for the banker-politician-made crash.
As the drip feed of slander and innuendo proceeds apace, the Labour Party membership continues to increase; many thousands flock to hear Jeremy Corbyn and make their presence enthusiastically felt on social media, radio, TV or in public – wherever there is an audience.
Media 45: BBC did NOT report US judgement that Ahmad was not ‘interested in or involved with what is commonly known as terrorism’
It has been announced (very quietly) that Babar Ahmad has been released. No reference to the eleven years of solitary confinement and isolation in ten different prisons – or Judge Hall’s favourable assessment of Ahmad’s character and motivation.
In a 2012 press release, campaigners seeking the release of Babar Ahmad recorded that nine years ago , officers from the Metropolitan Police broke down the door of Babar Ahmad’s house in a pre-dawn anti-terror raid.
Despite the Commissioner for the Metropolitan Police admitting in the High Court that his officers also carried out “a serious, gratuitous and prolonged attack” on Babar in the manner he described, a jury found all four officers charged with the assault ‘not guilty’.
He was then extradited to the US which claimed Ahmad’s alleged crimes fell under their jurisdiction because a website he ran in support of the Afghan Taliban used a server based in the US.
From the 171 page transcript of the judgment – making several other points – well worth reading:
Judge Janet Hall said in her ruling “There was never any aid given by these defendants to effectuate a plot. By plot, I mean a terrorist plot …neither of these two defendants were interested in what is commonly known as terrorism . . .
“This is not an operational case. I believe the government agrees that there were never any plots even discussed by these defendants. There was never any aid given by these defendants to effectuate a plot. By plot, I mean a terrorist plot. A plot to go out and purposely harm civilians.
What these defendants did is that they gave material support, or they sought to raise and get material support, they wanted material support to flow to the Taliban at a time when the Taliban was protecting Osama bin Laden”.
Her investigation was hampered, as she said in her ruling:
“There either are no transcripts or the transcripts were not turned over for various security reasons, or because the UK government wouldn’t turn them over to the United States, and they, therefore, could not turn them over to the defense.
“What we do have, and which the government properly turned over given they finally got access to them, are the summaries by law enforcement of what was said by this witness in various debriefings”.
In Judge Hall’s summing up:
“I should find first that Mr. Ahmad has no criminal history personally. He has never been convicted of a crime. But the guidelines call for him to be treated as if he’s in a Category VI, which typically is a person who has committed, at a minimum, three and up, could be more, serious felonies . . .
“I don’t think it’s right to act on what I would call an unfounded fear that a defendant might do something, like a terrorist act, and therefore we should just lock that person up forever . . .
“Maybe I’m influenced by the fact that I believe that at various times, the U.S. supported the rebels against the Russians in Chechnya, that we spoke about how the Chechens were not terrorists at the time they were trying to expel the Russians, which is the time that Mr. Ahmad was doing what he was doing on the web with respect to Chechnya.
“There’s nothing on the web to extol the terrorist acts that the splinter group engaged in in ’03. And I don’t find that Al-Qaida was any part of the Chechen rebels”.