« Martinkus, Dupont, and The Truth | Main | And the Chicken Littles of the Global Warming Crowd scream ---- Dammit!!!! »
October 23, 2005
TIME begins to correct the record. . .
You're probably aware I'm blogging alot about the Taliban Burned Bodies story. I've got the original post that was pretty popular and well linked here, then a disection of the "Interview with Stephen Dupont" that draws out the REAL FACTS from Dupont's own words, and then I begin to examine the radical bias of anti-war activist and embedded war reporter (there's some oxymoronic irony for ya) John Martinkus.
I didn't find this until today (and give a tip and a link in a second) but TIME magazine has broken ranks with the MSM pile-on and has begun to present some actual facts:
"Stench Prompted U.S. Troops to Burn Corpses"Posted Friday, Oct. 21, 2005
There simply wasn't enough room on the rocky hilltop above Gonbaz village in southern Afghanistan for the U.S. platoon and the corpses of the two Taliban fighters. The Taliban men had been killed in a firefight 24 hours earlier, and in the 90-degree heat, their bodies had become an unbearable presence, soldiers who were present have told TIME. Nor was the U.S. Army unit about to leave—the hilltop commanded a strategic view of the village below where other Taliban were suspected to be hiding.Earlier, Lt. Eric Nelson, the leader of B Company, I-508 platoon leader had sent word down to Gonbaz asking the villagers to pick up the bodies and bury them according to Muslim ritual. But the villagers refused—probably because the dead fighters weren't locals but Pakistanis, surmised one U.S. army officer.
It was then that Lt. Nelson took the decision that could jeopardize his service career. "We decided to burn the bodies," one soldier recounts, "because they were bloated and they stank." News of this cremation might have remained on these scorching hills of southern Afghanistan had the gruesome act not been recorded on film by an Australian photojournalist, Stephen Dupont. Instead, when the footage aired on Australian TV on Wednesday, it unleashed world outrage. A Pentagon spokesman described the incident as "repugnant" and said that the army was launching a criminal investigation into the alleged desecration of the corpses, which is in violation of the Geneva Convention on human rights.
Fueling the furor was the fact that the TV report showed that after the bodies were torched, a U.S. Psychological-Operations team descended on Gonbaz in Humvees with their loudspeakers booming: "Taliban, you are cowardly dogs. You are too scared to come down and retrieve the bodies. This just proves you are the lady-boys we always believed you to be."
Muslims traditionally bury their dead, and as one Kabul cleric Mohammed Omar told newsmen, "the burning of these bodies is an offense against Muslims everywhere. Bodies are burned only in Hell." But as one U.S. officer in Kandahar pointed out, the Taliban and al Qaeda never show any qualms about defiling the bodies of dead Afghan or American soldiers. Afghan President Hamid Karzai, anxious to quell any new wave of protests against the U.S. troops in Afghanistan of the sort that followed allegations of Koran desecration at Guantanamo, publicly condemned the burnings. A statement from the U.S. military command for Afghanistan said, "Under no circumstances does U.S. Central Command condone the desecration, abuse or inappropriate treatment of enemy combatants."
Congrats to TIME for being among the first in the MSM to not buy the "hit pieces" that Martinkus and Dupont have spun from lies, half-truths and misrepresentations.
Thanks to CounterColumn for tipping me to the TIME story, be sure to visit Jason's (not me) post on the issue where he points out the adherence to the Geneva Convention and the U.S. Army Field Manual (FM-27-10) which states:
Bodies shall not be cremated except for imperative reasons of hygiene or for motives based on the religion of the deceased. In case of cremation, the circumstances and reasons for cremation shall be stated in detail in the death certificate or on the authenticated list of the dead.
Just like the "Koran-flushing" incident, it's up to the average Jane and Joe and Jason to get the word out and make the media actually focus on the facts.
--Jason
Posted by JasonColeman at October 23, 2005 11:09 PM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.jasoncoleman.com/MT/mt-tb.cgi/222
Comments
Jason, fantastic work.
I'm not so sure, though, that Martinkus was embedded along with Dupont in the 173 Airborne.
I don't think he was.
The SBS TV website says: "Earlier this month, Dateline's John Martinkus was in Afghanistan to cover their elections, but his story tonight actually starts with some startling footage from another Australian, photojournalist Stephen Dupont, who, while he was embedded with the Americans,..."
If Dupont was at Gonbaz and Martinkus wasn't (and simply had a hand in editing and did the narration), well, that would further call into question Martinkus' journalistic credentials and further confirm him as a propagandist.
Then again, you may have have sources that can confirm he was indeed embedded along with Dupont.
Posted by: Robert Stevens at October 24, 2005 12:11 AM
Thanks for that observation, and I do need to chase that down a bit. It may be that Martinkus was not embedded as some say, but:
What we do know is that Martinkus is a major part of the "reporting" of this story and it's characterization. So far I can confirm that Martinkus is the "leader" on the writing of the story circulating around the MSM using Dupont's footage as the basis. Initial reports that I have show Martinkis as an embedded reporter and Dupont as a photojournalist also embedded. Whether or not Martinkus is just a reporter in Kabul who picked up Dupont's images is unclear.
Dupont was DEFINATELY on-scene, and Martinkus as also in Afghanistan and definately "broke" the story for the Australian media, but his status as a true embed is questionable.
Martinkus IS the driving force behind the story though, that much is certain.
Dupont almost seems to be distancing himself from the reporting (desecration and purpose for burning) but standing by his images, which is OK as the images are one thing; how they are interpreted and reported is quite another.
I'll examine this more tomorrow and make any necessry corrections.
Thanks,
--Jason
Posted by: Jason Coleman at October 24, 2005 12:59 AM
