Australian Broadcasting Corporation

TV PROGRAM TRANSCRIPT

LOCATION: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...4/s1155990.htm

Broadcast: 16/07/2004

Iraqi PM executed six insurgents: witnesses
Reporter: Maxine McKew


MAXINE MCKEW: Let's go straight to the allegations that Iyad Allawi executed as many as six suspected insurgents at a Baghdad police station at the end of June.

The explosive claims in tomorrow's Sydney Morning Herald and Age newspapers allege that the prisoners were handcuffed and blindfolded, lined up against a courtyard wall and shot by the Iraqi Prime Minister.

Dr Allawi is alleged to have told those around him that he wanted to send a clear message to the police on how to deal with insurgents.

Two people allege they witnessed the killings and there are also claims the Iraqi Interior Minister was present as well as four American security men in civilian dress.

Well, the journalist reporting the story is Paul McGeough, awarded a Walkley Award for his coverage of the Iraq war last year.

He's also a former editor of the Herald and is now the paper's chief correspondent.

He's joined me on the line from a location in the Middle East.

MAXINE McKEW: Paul McGeough, thanks for joining us.

Paul, as you've also made clear in your article, Prime Minister Allawi has flatly denied this story.

Why then is the Herald so confident about publishing it?

PAUL McGEOUGH, 'SYDNEY MORNING HERALD' AND 'AGE' FOREIGN CORRESPONDENT: Well it's a very contentious issue.

What you have is two very solid eyewitness accounts of what happened at a police security complex in a south-west Baghdad suburb.

They are very detailed.

They were done separately.

Each witness is not aware that the other spoke.

They were contacted through personal channels rather than through the many political, religious or military organisations working in Baghdad that might be trying to spin a tale.

And they've laid it out very carefully and very clearly as to what they saw.

MAXINE McKEW: You haven't identified these witnesses but why have they felt free to talk about such an extraordinary story?

PAUL McGEOUGH: Well, they were approached through personal connections and as a result of that, they accepted assurances.

They were guaranteed anonymity, they were told that no identifying material would be published on them and they told what they saw.

MAXINE McKEW: And just take us through the events as they were accounted to you?

PAUL McGEOUGH: Well, I'll take you through what the two bits of pieces of what the two witnesses said to give you the full chronology as I understand it.

There was a surprise visit at about 10:30 in the morning to the police centre.

The PM is said to have talked to a large group of policemen, then to have toured the complex.

They came to a courtyard where six, sorry seven prisoners were lined up against a wall.

They were handcuffed, they were blindfolded, they were described to me as an Iraqi colloquialism for the fundamentalist foreign fighters who have come to Baghdad.

They have that classic look that you see with many of the Osama bin Laden associates of the scraggly beard and the very short hair and they were a sort of ... took place in front of them as they were up against this wall was an exchange between the Interior Minister and Dr Allawi, the Interior Minister saying that he felt like killing them on the spot.

It's worth noting at this point in the story that on June 19, there was an attack on the Interior Minister's home in the Sunni triangle in which four of his bodyguards (inaudible) --

Dr Allawi is alleged to have said (inaudible) -- .

MAXINE McKEW: Paul, you just dropped out there.

You were just beginning to describe in fact how this incident, this alleged incident, took place.

What was the action taken?

PAUL McGEOUGH: Um, after a tour of the complex, the sort of official party, if you like, arrived in a courtyard where the prisoners were lined up against a wall.

An exchange is said to have taken place between Dr Allawi and the Interior Minister.

The Interior Minister lives to the north of Baghdad, and on June 19, four of his bodyguards were killed in an attack on his home.

He expressed the wish that he would like to kill all these men on the spot.

The PM is said to have responded that they deserved worse than death, that each was responsible for killing more than 50 Iraqis each, and at that point, he is said to have pulled a gun and proceeded to aim at and shoot all seven.

Six of them died, the seventh, according to one witness, was wounded in the chest, according to the other witness, was wounded in the neck and presumed to be dead.

MAXINE McKEW: And the victims, they were, what, foreign or local insurgents?

PAUL McGEOUGH: They were - one of the witnesses described them as Wahabis, the Iraqi colloquialism for foreign fighters who have come into the country or local Iraqis who have taken on their Islamic jihad, if you like.

The reference is very much to their appearance - very short hair, very scraggly beard and four of them were described as Wahabis, the other three were described to me as normal Iraqis.

MAXINE McKEW: Now you're time line, Paul, on this is this happened just before the formal handover, is that right, to Dr Allawi's interim Government?

PAUL McGEOUGH: As explained by the witnesses, neither of them could put a precise date on the incident.

But they each gave me a description in terms of the days that had lapsed from it and by tracking back on the two different descriptions that they gave me from the date of the interview I had with them, which was some days apart, I was able to establish that it happened on or around the weekend of June 19/20.

That would make it three weeks after Dr Allawi had been named as Prime Minister - one week before the handover.

MAXINE MCKEW: And your informants, in what kind of tone did they recount this extraordinary tale?

PAUL McGEOUGH: Very matter-of-factly, which is often the way you get incredible or remarkable events explained to you in this part of the world.

There's been so much violence, so much pain and a particular attitude to death, if you like, that both of them recounted it quite matter-of-factly.

MAXINE McKEW: And of course, I have to ask you again - I'm sure that the Baghdad rumour mill would be thick with stories about Dr Allawi.

Why are you so confident that you can't put this story into that same category?

PAUL McGEOUGH: Because it came from two eye witnesses.

You're right about the Baghdad rumour mill, it's ferocious.

And versions of this story are on it and it was as a result of hearing this story as a rumour that I proceeded to check it to investigate it, to see if it had a factual base.

I used, as I said earlier, personal channels to make contact with the two witnesses to establish that they were in a position to know in terms of somebody trying to come at me with a story, that wasn't the case.

They did not come to me.

They weren't offered or volunteered to me.

There was an element of chance involved in meeting one of them, which would have made it impossible for him to have been a set-up for me, and listening to their stories, their stories sounded credible.

I had a colleague sitting in by accident on one of the interviews.

He was impressed by the credibility and something that's very important with a story like this in this part of the world, particularly where you're interviewing through interpreters I had a very sound, to me on the ground, a very valuable set of Iraqi eyes and ears listening and also believing the account.

MAXINE McKEW: Your sources of course will be sought out by other news agencies after tonight.

Will they stand up to scrutiny?

PAUL McGEOUGH: Well I don't know whether others will find them or not.

I won't be making them available to anyone.

I've given undertakes that I would protect their identities absolutely and I have to stand by that.

MAXINE McKEW: All right, for that.

Paul McGeough, thanks very much indeed, fascinating story.

PAUL McGEOUGH: OK.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/conte...4/s1155990.htm

Makes you think don't it. Not substantiated enough for me yet, but worrying all the same.

If insurgents were executed, I say
[img]graemlins/thewave.gif[/img] [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img]

Without a trial? By the president? In a jail?

Interesting idea of democracy.

[ 07-18-2004, 04:37 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

Still unsubstantiated reports from what I am hearing, but what happened to your sudden shift away from the due processes of the law TL. Are you becoming disillusioned and considering a career change?

Democracy will fail if used today in iraq. Examples must be set now. Besides, we could have a trial ala USSR. If you carry a RPG in the street and shout "Al sadr is the king", this is all the evidence i need.

Yeah, a headsman position would be a great stress reliever. Honestly, it was pretty long, so I didn't read it to even know that a trial had not been given. You may note that I barely could pick up on whether it was Known to have occurred or not. I just knew that the idea of dead insurgents gave me a warm fuzzy feeling.

thats okay, timber, i'm not holding blame for it either. i won't rejoice, because i don't find solace in death... but i will agree that there are people who's actions have earned them death.

at the same time, i think there is much more to this story than meets the eye... it wouldnt be the first biased media story, and judging from the nearly identical false story aired about 40 years ago about a vietnamese police cheif executing a civilian, im not so keen to believe that this was unjustified.

Two comments:

First, promethius, I don't think that was a false story from Vietnam (if we're thinking of the same story). There is a picture of a prisoner getting his brains blown out by a pistol. I can dig it up if you wish; I've got it in a textbook from an "American Experience in Vietnam" course I took a few years ago. I should be able to find the photographer's name, as well.

Second. Regardless of whether this execution, assuming it happened, was justified, it's not a comfort to know that "insurgents" can be executed without a trial and in private. "Insurgent" is a very convenient label that can encompass just about anyone who disagrees with the state. A pacifist anti-war protester can be termed an insurgent, as can the most violently radical bomb-throwing rebel. The point is, how are we supposed to know which is which if they are tried and executed privately, with no chance to defend themselves publicly? Seems pretty dictatorial and arbitrary to me.

Tell you what, I am willing to accept one deviation from the "fair trial" rules -- If you are, for any reason, toting an RPG on your shoulder, you should be shot on sight, regardless of your excuses or intentions. Any idiot standing nearby who tries to pick the damned thing up should also be shot immediately. I'd be all for that one. :D

Ok, I'll buy that. As long as there's witnesses.

First, Aerich, i'm sure you CAN find many copies of the picture of the so-called "execution" by the police cheif in vietnam. what you won't find is the true story of what occurred BEFORE or during the picture. the caption often enough read that the police cheif shot an unarmed man. while this is true enough, it leaves out enough to create a perception of untruth. for example:

1) the man who was "executed" was a rebel who, while the city was under attack assaulted the police cheif and three others as they left a building. the other three were killed by the man before the police cheif shot him bringing him to his knees.

2) instead of remaining down, the man tried to get up and continue combat by reaching his weapon. at this point the police cheif "executed" him, before he could reach his weapon lying on the ground. technically, he was still unarmed... but certainly NOT a non-combatant.

as to insurgents: here are two of the six definitions provided by dictionary.com:

-----------------
insurgent
adj : in opposition to a civil authority or government [syn: seditious, subversive] n 1: a person who takes part in a rebellion in the hope of improving conditions [syn: insurrectionist, mutineer, rebel] 2: a member of an irregular armed force that fights a stronger force by sabotage and harassment [syn: guerrilla, guerilla, irregular]
Source: WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University
---------------------
insurgent
\In*sur"gent\, n. [Cf. F. insurgent.] A person who rises in revolt against civil authority or an established government; one who openly and actively resists the execution of laws; a rebel.
Syn: See Rebel.
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc
----------------------

if one is actively (meaning agressively, not peacefully) attempting overthrow of their government, and is involved in an attack on members of that government, if they die in that attack, its water off a ducks back to me. like i said, i doubt we know the full story.

Bollocks. I've seen the video footage of the execution at University and the executed man was brought before the police chief by two armed officers with his hands bound behind his back. The officers told the chief where the man had been captured (near the police chief's house, where his wife and children had been murdered). In the heat of the moment, the chief assumed that the captured man was responsible for killing his family, took out his pistol and shot him in the head without hesitating. The captured man stood still, bound, and thoroughly terrified. No 'trying to reach for his weapon' or any such nonsense.

Bollocks. I've seen the video footage of the execution at University and the executed man was brought before the police chief by two armed officers with his hands bound behind his back.

by all means, i'm sure you can then provide a source for this so-called video... i should be very interested, since i was informed by credible sources that only one still picture existed, not a video.

I'll look the video up at the University archives today then. It was part of an Australian documentary and was filmed by Australian journalists, who incidentally were not as heavily censored as their American counterparts.

[ 07-19-2004, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Here is an overview of the Vietnam era photo that seems to tell the whole story. Google provided a host of links on the topic using the keywords: "Photograph Vietnam execution". The incident was also filmed by an NBC news crew.

http://www.wellesley.edu/Polisci/wj/...ges/vcexec.htm

Promie, I saw the execution on the news the day it happened as a child, it was an execution, a justified one in my opinion, but still an execution.

Now for the fun part
I've been reading all this talk about trials and such. Yet what is a trial? let's boil it down, a trial is where somebody in charge makes a decision, We in the west think it must include lawyers and evidence, as per "our standards". In other parts of the world they have differant standards. What makes us think we can pass judgment on their standards, is that not EXACTLY what the anti-war crowd is accusing the USA of doing by trying to "make"(more accuratly discribed as "ALOW") a democracy to start in Iraq? Oh yeah I forgot it's ok for each of us to demand our standards to be upheld by others as long as others don't demand we uphold their standards.

Just when I thunk it couldn't get any more fun. ;) [img]smile.gif[/img] :D

It sounds like something Saddam Hussein would have done.

Right. Only the issue is rather confused in this case isn't it. Justification for the invasion of Iraq has by no small measure rested upon the notion that Saddam was a 'brutal dictator' that needed to be removed in order to bring 'freedom' and 'democracy' (Western ideas and standards) to Iraq. So, it was unacceptable by 'Western' standards for Saddam Hussein to imprison and execute his opponents without trial, but it is acceptable for the new, American-appointed Iraqi Prime Minister to do so? Where is the consistancy here?

Do you, John, believe that the war in Iraq was justified? Do you think that imposing your standards upon people you will most likely never meet was justified? If so, then fair enough, but if these allegations of execution without trial are true, then surely this PM must be opposed and removed from power? Right?

[ 07-20-2004, 04:05 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Thanks for doing the research, Chewy. That article was much clearer and more in context than the recollections of my overloaded memory.

I fully support The Hierophant's last post. You do have a point, John, about judging people by our standards, but we've (the Western idealogues) more or less decided that we cannot condone private executions. That power is too easy to abuse, and can lead to innocent people being executed by the state for no legitimate reason.

Note that I'm criticizing the process, not the result of this specific incident (if it actually happened). I don't think we have enough information (one source, after all) to do anything more than speculate about what actually happened and if it was deserved.

Edited for clarity.

[ 07-20-2004, 02:06 AM: Message edited by: Aerich ]

It certainly does Djinni - hold on - he was the bad guy wasn't he - I am sure I have that the right way round.

Right. Only the issue is rather confused in this case isn't it. Justification for the invasion of Iraq has by no small measure rested upon the notion that Saddam was a 'brutal dictator' that needed to be removed in order to bring 'freedom' and 'democracy' (Western ideas and standards) to Iraq. So, it was unacceptable by 'Western' standards for Saddam Hussein to imprison and execute his opponents without trial, but it is acceptable for the new, American-appointed Iraqi Prime Minister to do so? Where is the consistancy here?

Do you, John, believe that the war in Iraq was justified? Do you think that imposing your standards upon people you will most likely never meet was justified? If so, then fair enough, but if these allegations of execution without trial are true, then surely this PM must be opposed and removed from power? Right? </font>[/QUOTE]Hiero, you would be correct if I opossed impossing my standards on others, I don't, nor do I oposse other trying to imposse their standards on me. In fact I welcome that, I love to watch them go down in flames ;)

Yes to both questions. I didn't oposse Sodamn Insane because he executed people without trial, by western standards, but because he sactioned the killing and torturing/rape of family members of people that committed offenses that I believe didn't deserve that punishment. As you have writen "if these allegations" come back to me when they are no longer allegations but facts and we'll talk. Until then they are just allegations/acusations/yapping.

If anybody has problems with the new P.M., well get your gov'ts to gather their armies togather and take him out. Remember those that can do those that can't don't. In the physical world it's how many divisions you have in the field that count.

Aerich, I have no problem with the western standards, if I did I would leave. I agree with your statement on power and the ease of abuse. I don't even have a problem with people trying to impose their views/standards on others, that's life from what I've been able to see, we each and everyone of us try to to that to some extent or another. I do have a problem with people that for the sake of convenence will state that somebody is trying to impose their views/standards on somebody else in ONE arguement, yet the same people will try to impose their views/standards on others in another arguement.

Fair enough. We all do it to some extent, even if we try not to. Practically unavoidable. It's also easy to misconstrue someone else's points, or read in meanings and emphasis they didn't intend. Stupid language!

Anybody found any other sources that talk about the supposed execution?

Well I've seen it.

Weren't some insurgents executed at Kent State University once? I seem to recall that.

In self-defence of course.

Yeah! -- the voice from the land of recreational rioters trumps up one of our past occurrences. :rolleyes:

You don't even want to go there Donut!!!! During that time in the USA My father was an USAF ROTC instructor(1968-1970) Part of those peace love bortherhood of man crowd wanted to burn down our house kill my mom & dad. and on more then one occasion the local police kept a very tight watch on our house to make sure none of the "make love not war" pinko pimpply faced pukes stayed away. We lived in the country so the Hypocritical magot infested dope smoking wienny wacking sacks of horse manure didn't know exactly where we lived, lucking for them both of my parents are good ole country folk raised in Texas and can shoot. They tried once to strom the ROTC building, my dad and those under his command met them at the door and explained to them they may storm it but the first couple of dozen that tried wouldn't get to find out if the rest of them succeded. They decided they would march around carrying signs, maybe some of that money they parents spent for some learn'n worked that day.

Uh, help me out here... so, you don't approve of the 1970 student protests then? ;)

Anyway, did the students try to 'storm' the ROTC building before or after they'd burned it? And did these, um, "Hypocritical magot infested dope smoking wienny wacking sacks of horse manure" [sic] want to kill your Dad before or after the armed forces opened fire on crowds of unarmed protestors?

http://en.wikipedia.org/upload/6/65/...e_massacre.jpg

Of course, we're really getting off topic here.... cheers Donut! [img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] :D

[ 07-21-2004, 07:45 AM: Message edited by: The Hierophant ]

Don't know what you mean! Are you talking about football hooligans, I hope not because you are likely to highlight your ignorance of the subject. Why are you always so defensive?

I merely want people to think about who decides who is an insurgent or who isn't. Would you prefer the courts to decide or some quasi paramilitary organisation?

BTW - overuse of the rolleyes smiley again! Tut tut!

You don't even want to go there Donut!!!! During that time in the USA My father was an USAF ROTC instructor(1968-1970) Part of those peace love bortherhood of man crowd wanted to burn down our house kill my mom & dad. and on more then one occasion the local police kept a very tight watch on our house to make sure none of the "make love not war" pinko pimpply faced pukes stayed away. We lived in the country so the Hypocritical magot infested dope smoking wienny wacking sacks of horse manure didn't know exactly where we lived, lucking for them both of my parents are good ole country folk raised in Texas and can shoot. They tried once to strom the ROTC building, my dad and those under his command met them at the door and explained to them they may storm it but the first couple of dozen that tried wouldn't get to find out if the rest of them succeded. They decided they would march around carrying signs, maybe some of that money they parents spent for some learn'n worked that day. </font>[/QUOTE]They were kids for God's sake! What did they do to deserve to be murdered by their own countrymen? Throw a few stones? Chant a few slogans?

The point is the courts should decide. Just as they should in Iraq.

Donut I don't give a Rat's rear end if they were kids or not, they still sought to do my family and me harm. Now I've read where you wrote about walking in another shoes, I've just informed you of the "other's shoes" durring the protests of the late '60's and early 70's. Now will you walk in my shoe's or not? There are at least two sides to every story, in my nearly 43 years on this dust ball, I've met with several people that were present at Kent State and Proud they were part of the protests. UNTIL I told them of the otherside of the action they took, without execption They saw for the first time what the other side of their actions, and their pride in their past waned. Now that they've matured they realize there is a difference in protesting and rioting/seeking to do harm to others in the name of peace. With the mature mind of an adult they realized their actions made them NO differant then the very thing they were protesting. So No I don't approve of the riots on the college campi of the 60's and 70's, I do approve of peaceful protests, as my dad told them "I've killed badies so your longhair rear ends can be out here carring signs, you had better be carring signs". There is NOTHING wrong with peaceful protests, in fact the right to protest and petition the government is what our military is there to protect, but it is not there to protect riotting and lawless pimmply faced pinko pukes.

Donut, during my brief tenure in England, the college students I roomed with attended no less that 3 protests that became riotous. Admittedly, it was usually (to hear them tell it) the case where a peaceful demonstration got violent because the cops shield-walled the demonstrators into an impossibly small area. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that such a thing occurs much more over there than here. Which is why I saw bringing up Kent State as a pot-kettle-black issue. Without even needing to go into the footie idiocy riots issue.

I do take offense to the peaceful protestors (even if they threw stones) at Kent State being compared to RPG-toting assholes. Just my personal bias, of course.

[ 07-21-2004, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

Hiero, there where two instances, 1 they wanted to burn the ROTC building, but a querk of fate the College was in the process of moving the ROTC buidling to a new location, so they didn't know where to look. They then decided to burn the house of the ROTC instructor, but the were batting 1.000 because dad had just been stationed there and the pukes couldn't find tour house, not for the lack of trying, but the Local police did and came by to inform us and keep an eye out on us, while my dad was TDY. The second time they wanted to storm the ROTC building Dad was there and He and His men (active duty & ROTC Students)put an end to it.

Now you maybe able to find all kinds of stuff on the web about the protests of the 60's & 70's, But I doubt anything you find will tell the whole story from both sides, that has been My experience from looking at websites on the subject. Before Kent State there was Lots of violence in the "Peace Protests" many police, National Guardmens, and ROTC instructors were attacked and injured, so don't try to give me this all they wanted to do was shout and call names stuff. My knowledge comes not from books and websites but from living durring that time, and taking to others that were there and dealt with the protesters. Pictures are well and good but they only show a small instance of time from one prespective.

OK. Cool. Well, not cool, but you get me [img]smile.gif[/img]