This guy needs a more ambitious lawyer

Apparently a Lebanese-German man is suing the CIA for inflicting upon him "prolonged arbitrary detention, torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment". He's seeking damages of......"at least" $75,000.

Working for the enemy?

BBC bigwig John Simpson chimes in today with another column on Iraq. It raises some very interesting questions.

Simpson makes the point that, far more than a conventional war (which, he acknowledges, America "would win hands down"), Iraq is "a war of public relations", and not just for America. He also says that "For the insurgents, too, this is a war for public opinion." And although he avoids coming out and saying it baldly, it is clear that Simspon thinks the "insurgents" are winning this particular public relations war.

Now, whether or not he is correct about this, the very fact that he thinks it raises an interesting, and perhaps troubling, issue. John Simpson is an opinion columnist for the BBC. As such, presumably, he hopes to help shape public opinion about issues he writes about. That is, afterall, why pundits offer their opinions up to the public - in the hopes of influencing the opinions of members of that public. And, if the Iraq war is a battle for public opinion, then isn't it fair to ask what role John Simpson, as a shaper of public opinion, is playing in that war?

Take, for instance, the very column under question. What is the likely effect on public opinion of Simpson's sage observations? Well, let's look at the observations/opinions he is promoting:

• America's military strength is not all that helpful in Iraq.
• On the same day Bush pledged "nothing less than complete victory", 10 marines were killed in Iraq which, Simpson reminds us, is atypically yet particularly significant.
• The Pentagon "presumably" witheld the news of the deaths for 24 hours for political/propaganda reasons.
• If America can declare victory "of a kind", withdraw its troops, and leave Iraq to "sink or swim" on its own, then even if the "insurgents" ultimately win the war outright, America could claim to be uninvolved.
• The Iraqi army is ill-suited and ill-equipped to take on the "insurgents".
• The US "has not succeeded in neutralising the insurgency in any of the major population centres in the Sunni heartland."
• History strongly favors an "insurgent" victory.
• The insurgents "had the better of" the war for public opinion last week. (This, by the way, the week in which the "insurgents" killed 2 British civilians at the airport and kidnapped a German, an American, two Canadians, and a Briton, civilians all, holding them hostage. Simpson doesn't mention these events, so it is not clear whether or not he considers them to be a part of the good PR week for the "insurgents".)

This is all pretty demoralizing stuff. Which seems to be rather the point. Significantly, Simpson offers up no suggestions or opinions about what to do to correct this seemingly hopeless situation. He is content simply to encourage his readers to adopt his gloomy view of the future.

Now if, as Simpson proclaims is the case (and I think he is correct at this point), public opinion is the "real battleground" of this war, and John Simpson himself is helping to shape that opinion through the use of his (tax-funded) opinion column, then in light of the opinions he is promoting, it seems entirely fair to me to wonder just who John Simpson is pulling for.

BBC still telling porkies about Wilson/Niger

BBC's Newsnight interviewed Judy Miller, formerly of The New York Times, yesterday. Recall that Miller was the NYT reporter who went to jail ostensibly to protect the source of her information about Valerie Plame, that source turning out to be Scooter Libby, who has since been indicted for perjury and obstruction of justice. Presumably to help edify viewers, Newsnight has put together a timeline about the whole affair.

Now, I don't want to beat a dead horse, but it is both astonishing and galling that, even after BBC Online's Paul Reynolds managed to do a commendable job setting out the details of the affair (after much prompting from TAE), the wider BBC still refuses to tell the true story. The very first entry in the timeline has three sentences, each of which is, in a word, false.

Joseph C Wilson IV, a retired career diplomat, is asked by the CIA to go to Niger, in west Africa, to investigate reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium there. On his return, Mr Wilson reports back that he does not believe this. Nevertheless, President Bush refers to the reports in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

First, Wilson was not sent to investigate reports that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Niger. He was sent to investigate reports that Iraq had purchased uranium there.

Second, Wilson did not report back that he did not believe that Iraq had tried to buy uranium in Niger. He reported back that he believed no purchase had taken place.

Third, Bush did not refer in his SOTU address to the reports which Wilson was sent to investigate. He referred to a British intelligence claim which, significantly, British intelligence stands by to this very day.

Three sentences; three falsehoods. The BBC at its best.

Also notable is the complete absence in the timeline of any reference at all to the Senate Intelligence Committee investigation that looked into the matter, much less any reference to the fact that the investigation totally discredited Wilson. The BBC is shameless.

(Review of the Miller interview hopefully to come later this weekend.)