Those Libyan Atrocities: Do They Really Stand Up? by Alexander Cockburn

[PurityOfEssence]

When one crosses certain lines, one seeks to demonize the enemy to such a degree that all mitigating voices of dissent are snuffed out. Conjuring up accusations of systematic rape is one of the purest forms of this kind of vilification. Such actions are not the acts of moral people: to whip up that kind of frenzy and push that particular button is something that should only be done in the face of true and provable acts of outrage.

Our President and the interventionist pro-war camp seem so righteous in their zeal that no level of hyperbole is off limits; it's the curse of the arrogantly lily-pure: the self-granted absolution to dispense with fair-play due to the moral superiority of one's cause.

Alexander Cockburn digs into this cockamamie--pun intended--hysteria in this article, and it's well worth the read. Maybe Qaddafi did such a thing--time will tell--but it certainly makes no sense to me: how would this do anything but galvanize the opposition? The unspoken reality of the Libyan situation is that, even though Qaddafi's a pretty damned intolerant dictator, he actually has a lot of support. Why? He's been good for women, secularists, Christians, BLACK AFRICANS, and other members of society, he's drastically raised the standard of living, and he's kept the psychotic Islamists down. That's another conversation, though...

Enjoy.

No doubt individual rapes have occurred. Most famously, Iman al-Obeidi burst into a foreign journalists' hotel in Tripoli on 26 March and gave a credible account of how she had been raped by pro-Gaddafi security men, before she was hustled away. But, despite the ICC allegations, so far Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have not found evidence of such mass government-ordered rape despite extensive investigations. Diana Eltahawy, Amnesty International's Libya expert, told me that Amnesty researchers in Libya had found no evidence of such a policy.

Could women be keeping quiet about what had happened to them for reasons of shame or fear of being killed to preserve "family honour"? Ms Eltahawy says: "We spoke to women, without anybody else there, all across Libya, including Misrata and on the Tunisia-Libya border. None of them knew of anybody who had been raped. We also spoke to many doctors and psychologists with the same result." Liesel Gerntholtz, head of women's rights at Human Rights Watch, which has also been investigating the charges of mass rape, says: "We have not been able to find evidence. We have not been able to verify it." She emphasized that her group's researches were ongoing.

Counterpunch

[gratuitous]

1. Knock it off, Captain Buzzkill

We need a shiny new war to get going here. The old ones are pretty scuffed up and dingy and nobody likes them anymore. It's just a coincidence that we're spoiling for a fight with Libya and it has so much oil underneath it and places like Syria and Yemen don't.

[inna]

3. Libya has been squarely in the neocons' crosshairs for years. So far everything is going according

to the grand plan, and Syria could very well be next, actually.

[PurityOfEssence]

13. and true to form, Richard Perle made a slab of money from the deal

Richard Perle, pretty much evil incarnate, worked as a lobbyist for Qaddafi to ingratiate him with the US government. Now, of course, he's back to fanning the flames.

[leftynyc]

21. Bullshit

The Bush administration took Libya OFF the terrorist list.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/worldviews/detail?entry_id=5221

From the link:
Now, however, the Bush administration has decided that, his terrorist credentials notwithstanding, Gadhafi isn't such a bad guy after all. It has decided to resume full diplomatic relations with Libya. Just as, during Stalinist times or in Mao's China, a ruling regime's once-shunned political opponents were occasionally brought back into official favor and very publicly "rehabilitated," so has Team Bush deemed the democracy-crushing Libyan strongman worthy of its goodwill, no matter how many deaths he may have caused, at home or abroad.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. So what? Qaddafi changed the oil deals at threat of nationalization

You can't just slice out a moment years ago and not recognize the subsequent events. Chevron and Occidental left once they found out that the deals weren't good enough for them. Qaddafi changed the deal for the French from them being able to take 50% of what they pumped to 27% of what they pumped, and did so with the threat of nationalization.

Once the sword of nationalization is unsheathed, businesspeople know they're in peril, and stability is more than just a little helpful to commerce.

[leftynyc]

26. That's not what the poster claimed

He/She claimed attacking Libya has been a neocon plan for years. I pointed out that once oil came into the equation, we were more than happy to to forget the mass murdering prick blasted an American plane out of the sky.

[inna]

29. Yes, attacking Libya most definitely has been a neocon plan for years.

Short temporary "warming" in 2006 does not change that simple fact. :shrug:

You need to read up on this issue before falsely accusing other posters of making "bullshit" claims.

[Doctor Hurt]

2. Wow...people here actually believe Alexander Cockburn, climate change denialist?

just wow. I thought this was a progressive board.

[EFerrari]

4. Plenty of people are calling bs on this story.

NEWS FROM UNDERGROUND | "Mass rape" in Libya? The story seems as bogus as the one they told about Saddam Hussein in 1990...

http://whowhatwhy.com/2011/06/15/whowhatwhy-factchecks-the-media-more-questions-about-the-libyan-sex-atrocity-reporting/

More Questions About The Libyan Sex Atrocity Reporting
By Russ Baker on Jun 15, 2011

Rape is tragically common in wartime—but did Qaddafi really order it?

STORY SUMMARY:

Media reporting of atrocities by the Libyan regime continues to heat up. The alleged crimes are horrific—Muammar Qaddafi ordering mass, Viagra-fueled rapes. But the claims are mitigated by some really poor journalism, raising suspicions that the public is falling victim to a disinformation campaign. Here’s the latest.


http://womensphilanthropy.typepad.com/stephaniedoty/2011/06/news-from-underground-mcm-mass-rape-in-libya-the-story-seems-as-bogus-as-the-one-they-told-about-sad.html

[sabrina 1]

5. Well, I'm not that familiar with him, I've read some of his stuff

over the years, but he's right about this.

If atrocities is why we are in Libya, we better start in Afghanistan first. The atrocities committed by US soldier in that country are so horrific that someone actually needs to rescue those people from us.

The photos I accidentally saw when flipping through Rolling Stone magazine this week, will give me nightmares for the rest of my life.

So, we are not there for humanitarian purposes and everyone knows it. We are known now as Imperial Colonialists around the world, no different than the ones we kicked out of this country, worse in many ways. How sad to see our democracy turned into an Empire without hardly a whimper from the American people. In fact with their support because they were so easily frightened.

[PurityOfEssence]

6. He's rather far left, but that is a perplexing stance

Hey, nobody's perfect.

Personally, I think global warming is the greatest danger we face, and I see the science as flat-out undeniable and scary. Still, that doesn't mean that everything else out of the man's mouth is incorrect; to say such would be to effectively obliterate much of the leftist worldview.

The guy's rather left; it's pretty hard to deny.

If you've read Counterpunch much at all, you must know that it's a very left leaning website.

[Doctor Hurt]

19. well, since the OP has the author wrong

the criticism is moot. However, Climate change denialism is the ONE ISSUE I can't forgive on.

Because it's fucking with the survival of my kids. Not their standard of living, not their retirement, but their actual existence in a non Mad-Max style world.

[PurityOfEssence]

22. I completely agree

I have children myself, and even if I didn't, I take the concept of social responsibility and good stewardship very seriously. People think it's "cute" to be contrarians on this point, and it's simply not; it's real, and it has to be dealt with seriously and immediately.

It's not an issue for politics or the flabby middle-of-the-road antics of our President; the whole future of the species is at stake.

Still, if a person is right on some things, those points shouldn't be dismissed because of one bit of idiocy.

[Prometheus Bound]

8. The New York Times printed pretty much the same thing this week.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1331055

[Distant Observer]

45. That much anti-Gaddafi turns out to be questionable is an old story going back to Reagan

[reorg]

9. the author of the article is Patrick Cockburn

correspondent for The Independent and author of several books on the Iraq wars. Unlike his brother Alexander he doesn't write op-eds on current events and every other hot topic, he concentrates on analyses and reports about the conflicts in Afghanistan and the Middle East.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrick_Cockburn

Which you would know, of course, had you taken the time to click on the link and actually read his article.

Counterpunch did not fail to point out, however, that "CounterPunch coeditor Alexander Cockburn was the first to question the incubator story, because of obvious fabrications about the hospital and conduct of the supposed massacre."

[PurityOfEssence]

12. My mistake too...

Moving too quickly here...

Thanks for pointing that out.

[JackRiddler]

14. Do you have anything to say about the story by Patrick Cockburn? (who is not Alexander)

Wow. Just wow. I thought this was a place to discuss ideas and events, not to register allegiance to an ideal of "progressive."

[Doctor Hurt]

20. Well you were wrong.

this is not a place for discussion.

[bhikkhu]

7. The zeal of his hyperbole has no limits

Qadhafi is likely innocent because it makes the most sense to him? And this makes him someone's judge for what is cockamamie hysteria?

More frantic and likely (in time) embarrassing mental gymnastics, though guys like that typically have no memory of their own jackassery.

[reorg]

10. did you even read the article?

Cockburn observes:

"Liesel Gerntholtz, head of women's rights at Human Rights Watch, which has also been investigating the charges of mass rape, says: "We have not been able to find evidence. We have not been able to verify it. ...

The one substantive piece of evidence for mass rape came last month in the form of a survey by Dr Seham Sergewa, a child psychologist who had been working with children traumatized by the fighting. She distributed 70,000 questionnaires to Libyans in refugee camps and received 59,000 responses.

She says: "We found 10,000 people with PTSD , 4,000 children suffering psychological problems and 259 raped women." They said they had been raped by Gaddafi's militiamen, sometimes in front of their families. Dr Sergewa says she interviewed 140 women who had been raped. But, says Ms Eltahawy, when asked if Amnesty International could meet any of them, Dr Sergewa said "she had lost touch with them and she was the only one who said she was directly in touch with victims". Given Amnest Inernational’s declaration that it had been unable to find evidence of mass rapes, it seems the organization does not regard Dr Sergewa’s researches as reliable."

And cautions:

"The verification of atrocities matters so much because if people are to try to have them stopped they must be sure that what they are told is true and not propaganda."


So, I'm not sure who the zealots are who are using hysterical hyperbole for frantic mental gymnastics.

[EFerrari]

11. Sergewa has been unable to produce those questionnaires

for independent review.

[bhikkhu]

37. Yes, and its not journalism - its a highly biased opinion piece

Sometimes I wonder how many people are left who would recognize the difference, or who even care. I don't have much respect or interest in zealots on either side peddling exaggeration, invention and hyperbole.

[reorg]

40. Did you even read what I quoted from the article?

The complete absence of any substance in your posts is stunning.

Cockburn makes a number of factual statements to point out that:

- two notorious pieces of propaganda and disinformation greatly helped to rally support for the first Iraq war: 1. incubator story, 2. baby milk factory
- the most "compelling" claim so far used to rally support for the war in Libya is the allegation of government-ordered rape, although neither Amnesty International nor Human Rights Watch have found evidence in support of it

and he cautions to remain skeptical: "The verification of atrocities matters so much because if people are to try to have them stopped they must be sure that what they are told is true and not propaganda."

How can any objective observer disagree with this?

[bhikkhu]

42. While horrible if true, the rapes are a side issue to the war

There was no discussion or concern over rapes that I know of leading up to the UN resolution, and as far as I know the accounts post-date the full involvement of all involved parties - so perhaps they are added motivation after the fact, or perhaps they are a red herring. In any case, they aren't the central issue or the most compelling claim.

On Cockburn, that he makes a factual statement here and there doesn't change that its a highly biased opinion piece, not journalism. Again, sometimes I wonder if people still recognize the difference, or whether they even care.

[reorg]

44. You are implying that war propagandists believe their own lies

The Iraq war wasn't started to rescue incubator babies, nor did the UN resolution specify the "systematic attacks" civilians needed to be protected from. Any horror story will do to fill that void, and there is indeed nothing more compelling than the allegation of sexual violence on a mass scale if you want to demonize your enemy.

Cockburn's article is a short reflection on war reporting and propaganda based on facts gathered through news stories and what he experienced and investigated on his own. I guess you could say it is a comment rather than a news story, but you have failed for the third time in a row now to support your claim that it is "highly biased". It is level-headed and concise, and actually very good journalism. Compare it to the war propaganda The Guardian masks as news and you will see the difference.

[JackRiddler]

15. Can you get the headline corrected?

[CBGLuthier]

16. Rape Room Incubator Squads with Yellow-Caked Tubes are coming for our children

[bhikkhu]

17. There is a good point there -

The UN resolution had nothing to do with allegations like that, but rather with Gadhafi's own words, actions, and immediate history.

If you have a viewpoint that doesn't require outrage to support it, you tend to avoid getting involved in war-time allegations of that sort.

[EFerrari]

18. The UN resolution had nothing to do with the allegation except that Susan Rice

was the first promulgator of the allegation in officialdom.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/29/diplomat-gaddafi-troops-viagra-mass-rape

She sure seemed to have no problem "getting involed" with the allegation.

/typo

[PurityOfEssence]

23. The UN Resolution had nothing to do with Qaddafi's words, actions or immediate history

The whole thing sprang from suppositions about what he would do from interested parties. The Rebels were the ones shrieking about his impending and undeniable bloodbath-to-be in Benghazi.

His words didn't sustain these accusations: he said he'd give amnesty to those who laid down their arms and he was only talking about armed insurrectionists, not the whole civilian population as was repeatedly claimed.

His actions certainly didn't provide any justification: the towns he'd retaken hadn't had any mass atrocities like the ones claimed to be in the offing for Benghazi.

His immediate history had nothing to do with it; the only large act of mass killing was 15 years ago when Islamists who had been on a killing rampage replete with an assassination attempt were being held in an overcrowded jail, rioted, took hostages and killed at least one of them, and got killed when the prison was retaken.

If you look at the situation, the rebels in Benghazi (many who were relatives of the Islamists who had been killed in 1996) played the race card, saying that Qaddafi was using African Mercenaries, and played the fear card that he would exterminate a civilian population, even though he'd never done anything of the sort in the past and had been rather clear in his rhetoric that he was only going after armed rebels. This was a ginned up war.

[bhikkhu]

27. UN resolution was March 18; here's Gadhafi's words on the 17th:

Muammar Gaddafi told Libyan rebels on Thursday his armed forces were coming to their capital Benghazi tonight and would not show any mercy to fighters who resisted them.

In a radio address, he told Benghazi residents that soldiers would search every house in the city and people who had no arms had no reason to fear.

"It's over ... We are coming tonight," he said. "You will come out from inside. Prepare yourselves from tonight. We will find you in your closets."

The speech was broadcast on radio and television shortly after a defense ministry statement warned that any foreign military action would trigger counter-attacks and endanger all air and sea traffic in the Mediterranean region.

In the speech, the Libyan leader denounced the revolutionaries and said: "We will show no mercy and no pity to them."

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/03/17/141999.html

His words, and the fact that his army was to be in Benghazi within 24 hours, was the immediate cause of a hurried UN resolution. You're welcome to your opinion (shrieking rebels?) but you don't get to rewrite history.

[PurityOfEssence]

28. How does this contradict what I'm saying?

He said he was going after armed revolutionaries, NOT after every civilian in sight and razing the place to the ground. That's what we were told. We were told about hundreds of thousands of innocents being DEFINITELY in peril from this mad dog. That's entirely different.

We were told of his history of massacring thousands, which really tracks to one incident: the putting down of a prison riot where hostages had been taken, the work of radical Islamists who had been on a killing spree of uniformed police and military personnel and had made an unsuccessful attempt at assassinating him.

The shrill hyperbole was amplified and echoed repeatedly, yet here you show me "evidence" that is nothing of the sort: he's talking about dealing harshly with ARMED INSURGENTS, not civilians.

Please don't throw Daniel Patrick Moynihan's great quote--paraphrased--in my face: I'm not making up anything, I'm literally relating the very skewed and deceptive claims of the interventionists and rebels at the time, and your quotes literally bear out my contention.

I'm thoroughly sick of pro-war interventionists who advocate violent destabilization of a complex society of which they know little if anything taking the moral high ground and belittling those who don't want war as somehow morally inferior. It's tiresome.

[bhikkhu]

31. The UN resolution was directly connected to Gadhafi's threats

The debate immediately before the resolution was passed was highly influenced by the Gadhafi himself.

[Distant Observer]

32. BS. How many times have how many nationalist strong-men made these kind of threats against opponents

It is the typical rhetoric of strong-men in the region and as Richard Haas testified before Congress, in the presence of much of the Defense and Intelligence witnesses, "I would suggest that what has been asserted as fact was in reality closer to assumption. First, it is not clear that a humanitarian catastrophe was imminent in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi. There had been no reports of large-scale massacres in Libya up to that point . ."

The unvarnished facts of 40 years of the Libyan revolution provides no basis for the interpretation pushed as a pretext for the unprecedented resolution.

The real agenda behind the resolution could not be the humanitarian impulse as stated since much more vast threats to human live have raise their head throughout the world without this type of intervention -- contemporaneously in Bahrain, the Ivory Coast, Yemen, Syria, Sudan.

[bhikkhu]

35. BS, except that's the way it happened

The simple cause and effect is Gadhafi threatened to use his army with "no mercy and no pity", house to house in Benghazi to eliminate his opposition, and the UN reacted.

I suppose some people would say he had a right to do do whatever he wanted, and some people would say he was just bluffing, but in any case his threat (and his deployment of an armored military force to the area) was the most immediate cause of the UN resolution.

[joshcryer]

36. Usual Libya bashing suspects.

Not worth even consideration.

[bhikkhu]

38. I still find it a little bizarre

Like a cognitive deficit or blind spot - to see the simple facts of something that happened very publicly only a little while ago rewritten in a way opposite from how they actually transpired.

It reminds me of the mental gymnastics that must have been involved in those 10% of people who believe Obama caused the recession; I see it, but I don't get it.

[joshcryer]

39. It's the media narrative, Cockburn isn't the only one spreading it.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/20/world/africa/20rape.html

As John Stewart made the case, the media makes money creating controversy.

The fact is we won't know the extent to which the shit is happening for many weeks.

But there will invariably be people who, even after the ICC investigates, will deny whatever happened.

[EFerrari]

41. Baloney. Threats have been flying all over the Middle East for months.

[JackRiddler]

25. bump

[Puregonzo1188]

30. Is the article by Patrick or Alexander Cockburn?

Your title says Alexander, but the link Patrick.

[PurityOfEssence]

34. It's Patrick; I was moving too quickly

I was reading Counterpunch and saw Cockburn and made a sloppy assumption. By the time I realized it, it was too late to edit the post.

[Distant Observer]

33. The all pervasiveness of the Western Information Ops in Libya leaves little that's believeable

From the insight I got from ex-CIA guys about methods of insertion "facts" into the media stream, much of what we read, hear and see -- from all sides -- could be constructed to serve the underlying agenda -- which I really don't fully understand.

[Starry Messenger]

43. k&r