PDA

View Full Version : Frontline Responds to Haditha Criticisms



thedrifter
02-26-08, 06:27 AM
Frontline Responds to Haditha Criticisms

Monday, February 25, 2008 3:16 PM

On Wednesday, February 20, 2008, Newsmax.com published an article "Frontline Haditha Story Short on Facts" by Phil Brennan critical of PBS's Frontline program on Haditha "Rules of Engagement."


Frontline has responded to Newsmax's article below.

Dear Editor:


I am responding on behalf of FRONTLINE to Philip Brennan's piece last week about our broadcast of "Rules of Engagement." We would appreciate it if you would post this reply as a correction to the points he raises.


FRONTLINE is aware of the allegations about connections between the Hammurabi Human Rights Organization and insurgents. Major Dinsmore told FRONTLINE that Marine intelligence had intercepted communication between al-Mashhadani and known insurgents, and he voiced his beliefs about Hammurabi?s insurgent ties in our program. We are also aware of reporting about Abdul Rahman al-Mashhdani having been jailed, but that fact alone may not be enough to brand him an insurgent as many Iraqis have been arrested in broad sweeps.


Whatever ties the Hammurabi group or its individual members may have, we did feel it important to include the video in our coverage of the Haditha incident, for the role it played in drawing the attention of the media to the story. We were clear in our reporting that the Marines, having considered the source of the video, viewed it as propaganda and therefore dismissed it. Whatever the provenance of the footage, however, the central fact of the video is not in question - 19 Iraqis were killed in their homes, meaning the original press release was incorrect.


What remains less clear, and what interested FRONTLINE, was how the Iraqis died. Mr. Brennan is wrong in his assertion that FRONTLINE portrayed Haditha as peaceful and free of insurgents prior to the arrival of the Marines, while Newsmax and other media had reported the city to be firmly under insurgent control. In fact, what we reported is that Haditha was a "serene oasis" and "a popular vacation spot" before the war, but that "by the fall of 2005, nearly three years into the war, Haditha was war torn, and Sunni insurgents were in complete control."


As to Mr. Brennan?s third point that we showed the erroneous report numerous times, we?re not entirely sure what his concern is. We did in fact show the press release multiple times precisely because it was this erroneous report that led to accusations of a cover-up by the military and put these particular Marines under suspicion.


In fact, several attorneys defending the accused marines expressed their intense frustration with the press release, saying that had it not been for the erroneous initial description their clients would never have been subject to prosecution.


We were frankly surprised by the article, given that the reaction from the Marines we?ve heard from, including many in 3/1 has been overwhelmingly positive. The same has been true on military blogs; we?d invite you to read this from Blackfive, one of the most popular military blogs: http://www.blackfive.net/main/2008/02/frontline-convi.html


We're eager to hear details of the ?other serious flaws? in our program that you promise to detail later. We'd invite you and your readers to watch the program again on our web site at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/haditha/


Sincerely,


Catherine Wright Story Editor FRONTLINE


Phil Brennan responded today:


The Frontline documentary was on the whole stunningly accurate and went a long way toward destroying the media-fed portrayal of the November 19, 2005 battle in Haditha as a mindless massacre of innocent civilians, and I praise Frontline for what they have done.


My criticism however - that Frontline failed to properly address the motivations of Abdul Rahman al-Mashhdani - was a serious omission.


Regardless of what Catherine Wright implies – that it has not been proven that al-Mashhdani is an insurgent propagandist and operative – the fact remains that it was a series of cell phone calls between him and al Hadithi that alerted Marine Intelligence to the planned ambush in Haditha.


Moreover, al Mashhdani was arrested and imprisoned and interrogated in Abu Ghraib prison for five months and only released as part of a general amnesty. Marine intelligence officers continued to monitor his activities after his release. Finally, Frontline neglected to mention that the so-called Hammurabi group consisted entirely of al Mashhdani and his fellow insurgent operative al Hadithi.


I was wrong to infer that Frontline misrepresented the extent of insurgent control of Haditha. I had based that assertion on what several of the 3/1 Marines had said about the state of the city on the morning of November 19th prior to the IED blast.


As far as the erroneous press release goes, I stand by the facts as given to me by Major Dinsmore which I reported. It was by no means a deliberate cover-up by the Corps, but a stupid mistake by the press officer who ignored the last sentence of the report on the incident he was given which added that gunfire was also responsible for the civilian deaths.


I have no further criticisms of any real substance to offer. Frontline performed a great service to the United States Marine Corps and they deserve much credit for a superb documentary. If I gave any other impression, I apologize.


Phil Brennan

Ellie

thedrifter
02-26-08, 06:28 AM
'Frontline' Haditha Story Short on Facts

Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:20 AM

By: Phil Brennan

Tuesday night’s “Frontline” story on PBS, “Rules of Engagement,” omitted key facts that help exonerate the Marines accused of killing innocent Iraqi civilians in Haditha on Nov. 19, 2005.

”Frontline” accepted without question the legitimacy of the so-called Hammurabi Human Rights Association and allowed its alleged head man Abdul-Rahman al-Mashhadani to tell the story of the aftermath of Nov. 19, even though the organization consists solely of himself and one Thaer Thabit al-Hadithi — the original source of the video excerpts “Frontline” showed.

Both men are known insurgent propagandists whose communications were closely monitored by Marine intelligence officers. It was from those intercepts that the Marines were able to predict the Nov. 19 insurgent ambush in Haditha.

Moreover, “Frontline” neglected to inform viewers that the same Abdul-Rahman al-Mashhadani had just been released from almost six months captivity for insurgent activities. And al-Hadithi was considered a useful intelligence tool by Marines listening to him talk on his cell phone, as “My Men Are Heroes” author Nat Helms has also reported on the Defend Our Marines Web site.

“Frontline” portrayed Haditha as peaceful and free of insurgents prior to the arrival of the Marines, while Newsmax and other media had reported the city to be firmly under insurgent control.

On June 6, 2006, Maj. Jeffrey Dinsmore, an intelligence officer who carefully monitored the engagement in Haditha, provided an entirely different picture of the Haditha the Marines found when they arrived there. Dinsmore reported to Newsmax, “We were the first force into Haditha since [an article about insurgency in Haditha was published], and we were very aware of the insurgent control. A little tidbit of info: Did you know that when we went into the city, the insurgents had freshly paved over dirt roads leading into the town under the auspices of civic work projects and public improvement? They were beautiful asphalt-surfaced roads, with painted lines and everything.

“The only problem was that they had laid more than 100 mega-IEDs under that asphalt, and in order to avoid having to change batteries in the initiating devices, they wired them into city power via the power lines adjacent to the road. This is also the road where the engagement in question took place.”

“Frontline” repeatedly showed the erroneous report issued by the Marine public information officer alleging that the 15 civilian dead were killed by the IED blast set off by the insurgents, which killed one Marine and injured two others.

On June 12, 2006, Dinsmore — then still a captain — stated what really happened.

“Here is what the commander [Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani] told his boss, and what the battalion officially filed as a report that evening [after fighting all day]: ‘A total of 24 KIA were assessed . . . 15 civilians were assessed to be killed by the IED blast and ensuing fire . . . eight KIA were assessed to be enemy. The follow-on small arms fire between insurgents and coalition forces contributed to the civilian deaths.’

“I paraphrased slightly, but the last sentence is almost verbatim. One of NCIS' [Naval Criminal Investigation Service's] confrontational positions is that the last sentence, although it was fairly clear, was too brief and did not accurately reflect the magnitude of the civilian deaths. That is the basis of their accusation that the battalion was deceptive in its reporting.

“Also, the battalion had a specific methodology for determining the insurgents from the civilians. This was very clear from the outset, but one of the accusations is that we came up with the number out of thin air.

“How did this translate into the press release that all civilians were killed by the IED blast? Answer: The Division public affairs officer. He was totally removed from the situation, and either left out the last sentence on purpose, or just overlooked it.

“We at the battalion were dumbfounded that he left out that crucial piece of information when we read the final press release, but it was too late at that point. We were not surprised at all that the press release raised questions. We chalked it up to the clueless folks at division HQ, not deception.”

There were other serious flaws in “Rules of Engagement,” and Newsmax will examine them later, but the above should show how “Frontline” distorted the real picture by omitting crucial facts.

Ellie