Anti-Government Mirror Editor Sacked

[Chris Burford <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Yesterday the editor of the Mirror was summarily sacked in an amazing
coup for the government. Now three media leaders have been forced to
resign, the chair and CEO of the BBC and the Editor of the Mirror for
mishandling the exposure of government activities around the Iraq war.
Alistair Campbell slipped away more quietly but these latest events
suggest that government management of public issues is now lower
profile but can be perhaps even more effective. From there point of
view they did not put a foot wrong over the dramatic picture, and they
clearly made many effective moves behind the scenes.

I attach my cautious post of May 3 in case people think I may have
overstated the case more than a year ago for possible defeat of the
hegemonic invasion of Iraq.

Chris Burford


----- Original Message -----
From: "Chris Burford" <cburford@xxxxxxxxxx>
To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2004 9:23 PM
Subject: [PEN-L] water sports for British troops in Iraq


> Presumably most people are aware that just after the publication of
> the pictures of American troops torturing Iraqi prisoners, the Daily
> Mirror in the UK published pictures of UK soldiers urinating on
Iraqi
> captives, Saturday morning.
>
> http://www.mirror.co.uk/frontpages/
>
> The definition of the pictures was extremely good it struck me, with
> every drop of urine twinkling in the flashlight. By Saturday evening
> there were strong hints from UK military and establishment sources
> that their authenticity was in question. Certain details of the
> uniform were not, it was said, customary for that regiment, the
> clothing looked too clean etc.
>
> This morning the Mirror stands by the overall story but shades its
> world exclusive by saying that the soldiers who provided the
pictures
> say they are authentic and emphasising a beating.
>
> My guess is that this leaves the Mirror, which was a passionate
> opponent of the war, convinced that there is a real story here, but
> keeping open the possibility that the picture was a re-enactment by
> disgusted members of the regiment of something that actually
happened.
>
> Even though the imperialist philosophy of the British contingent to
> the Coalition, is that they are much better at peacekeeping than the
> Yanks, two bits of evidence make me believe the stories.
>
> 1. A couple of years ago I met a man in his thirties on a language
> course whose job involved preparing British armed forces to
withstand
> torture. So they had to bark humiliating orders at them and keep
them
> awake a long time and cold etc. One of the techniques was to to mock
> them sexually. I remember thinking at the time that presumably this
> was regarded as psychologically very stressful and intrusive but
would
> not cause actual injury.
>
> 2. A few weeks ago a group of half a dozen British detainees were
> released from Guantanamo and told their stories. A very credible
> mature islamic prisoner described how   female prostututes were used
> to masturbate younger male prisoners,
> who appeared to be very disturbed by this abuse of their religious
> principles and sense of personal identity. The older prisoners would
> joke about this, but to the younger prisoners it was actually rape.
>
> These bits of evidence suggest that within the British army and the
US
> army, rape and sexual humiliation in its various forms is considered
> not really torture but a softening up process particularly suitable
> for muslims, who are considered to be rather backward sexually. It
> leaves out of the picture what the military intelligence actually do
> to prisoners, once they have encouraged the squaddies to have a
little
> bit of fun with them. It seems entirely credible that within certain
> sections of the British army photographs of a similar nature have
been
> circulated. This probably provides a cover for more serious torture.
>
> Either way it is a disastrous imperialist strategy in the 21st
> century.
>
> Chris Burford
> London
>