What The American Press Missed
Yesterday, the news broke that US forces had captured Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a senior al-Qaeda commander, in transit back into Iraq to take over the AQ operation there late last year. He had already racked up quite a record, having coordinated operations with the Taliban in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and having masterminded two attempts to assassinate Pervez Musharraf. They forgot to mention one important point on his resumé, however:
The al-Qaeda leader who is thought to have devised the plan for the July 7 suicide bombings in London and an array of terrorist plots against Britain has been captured by the Americans.Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, a former major in Saddam Hussein’s army, was apprehended as he tried to enter Iraq from Iran and was transferred this week to the “high-value detainee programme” at Guantanamo Bay.
Abd al-Hadi was taken into CIA custody last year, it emerged from US intelligence sources yesterday, in a move which suggests that he was interrogated for months in a “ghost prison” before being transferred to the internment camp in Cuba.
Abd al-Hadi, 45, was regarded as one of al-Qaeda’s most experienced, most intelligent and most ruthless commanders. Senior counter-terrorism sources told The Times that he was the man who, in 2003, identified Britain as the key battleground for exporting al-Qaeda’s holy war to Europe.
How many people died in London? Over 50? One might think that should lead a news article that reports his capture -- and yet the American press simply either didn't know or didn't care about their subject.
For instance, Dafna Linzer has the only Washington Post report on the capture, and the word "London" doesn't appear once in it. What captures Linzer's keen reportorial eye? Readers find out that the US held him in secret detention centers before transferring him to Guantanamo Bay:
An Iraqi man accused of being a key aide to Osama bin Laden and a top leader of al-Qaeda was arrested late last year on his way to Iraq and handed over to the CIA, the Pentagon announced yesterday, in what became the first secret overseas detention since President Bush acknowledged the existence of such a program last September.The disclosure revealed that the Bush administration reopened its detention program within three months of announcing that no secret prisoners remained in the CIA's custody. The program has been criticized by human rights organizations and U.S. allies.
In a statement yesterday, the Defense Department described Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi, 46, as "one of al-Qaeda's highest-ranking and experienced senior operatives" and announced that he has been sent to the Pentagon-run prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
Bush acknowledged the CIA's detention program last September and transferred all 14 of its senior al-Qaeda suspects to Guantanamo Bay. One intelligence official said al-Iraqi was the first person held by the CIA since Bush made the acknowledgment, but the official would not say whether other people have been held since al-Iraqi was handed over to the agency earlier this year.
"What the president said in September was that there was no one in CIA custody at that time," an intelligence official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity. "This individual was captured late last year, well after the president's speech, and transferred to the CIA several weeks later."
Yes, that's quite a shock. When our intelligence services and military capture terrorists, who do not wear uniforms and conduct attacks on civilians -- such as London commuters -- we do not treat them like Italian POWs in 1944. They don't qualify as POWs, but as unlawful combatants, and we are entitled to hold them and interrogate them without announcing their capture or making them available for outside visits. That makes their detention secret by definition.
How about the New York Times? Mark Mazzetti and David Cloud file the Gray Lady's only report on "Mr. Iraqi", and again it never mentions London. In fact, it doesn't even talk about the involvement of "Mr. Iraqi" in any terrorist activity, just that he "is said" to be a "top aide" Osama bin Laden -- as if he was Osama's favorite personal secretary. Mr. Iraqi conducted terrorist operations that killed many people, but the Paper of Record can't bring itself to mention any of that.
The Los Angeles Times, which goes to bed last among the three papers, manages not to get hysterical about the circumstances surrounding his capture and detention. Josh Meyer provides a more reasoned look at Abd al-Hadi al-Iraq, including some of his personal history that the other papers skipped. He reports that a "key ally" participated in the capture, and that revealing where it took place would put that relationship at risk of rupture -- a good reason not to give al-Iraqi a platform. Meyer also fails to mention anything about the London bombings.
All of these papers had hours after the Times of London report to get the London bombings into the story. The Times goes to bed at 7 pm ET and hits the feeds and wire services. None of the American media bothered to check on Abd al-Hadi al-Iraqi. Readers should ask themselves whether that comes from a lack of intellectual curiosity, or whether it comes from a bias that puts the circumstances of the detention of a terrorist at a higher priority than the terrorism itself. We should also ask ourselves any practical difference exists between ignorance and bias.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on April 28, 2007 8:08 AM | Comments (10) | TrackBacks (3)
Comments (10)
Posted by SouthernRoots![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 28, 2007 9:02 AM
Probably the DNC hadn't had time to produce and deliver the official spin to the papers. Once that happens, we'll probably see a little more about it, but not on page one.
Posted by ikez78![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 28, 2007 9:12 AM
Nice post Ed.
This is a combo of fear of gaining support for the war on terror and ignorance and lack of interest. It's really sad.
Posted by docjim505![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 28, 2007 9:36 AM
Cap'n Ed wrote:
Readers should ask themselves whether that [the MSM's omission of the link between al-Iraqi and the London terror attacks] comes from a lack of intellectual curiosity, or whether it comes from a bias that puts the circumstances of the detention of a terrorist at a higher priority than the terrorism itself.
Why can't it be both "lack of curiosity" AND bias? Let's also throw laziness into the mix.
But I think that bias is the best explanation. If the MSM reported that al-Iraqi was involved in the London attacks, why (gasp!) some readers might actually think that getting him was a really Good Thing (TM). A few of them might even reach the conclusion that Bush and Co. aren't totally inept when it comes to the WoT (are we allowed to call it that anymore?).
What the MSM wants you to know is that we grabbed some innocent goat herder and immediately threw him into a Sooper-sekrit CIA torture prison, and then shipped him off to Gitmo to be tortured some more by the Stalinist prison camp goons we've got down there. I'm sure that the NYT is hot on the trail of finding out who helped us nab this guy so they can plaster it all over the front page and destroy that relationship and do more to sabotage our efforts against al Qaeda. The people's right to know, doncha know?
Bah.
Posted by gull![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 28, 2007 10:05 AM
What was also not mentioned (pointed out by Instapundit) is that this guy was an officer in Saddam's army.
Of course, those wishing to refute the Saddam, Iraq, Iran, al Qaeda connection would overlook this key point as well.
Posted by conservative democrat![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 28, 2007 2:30 PM
Yes. Of course. A conspiracy by the msm to not report good news. I hope they tortured the hell out of this killer for info. How soon do you think he was replaced? A week, two weeks? If Saddam and Osama did have a relationship, does occupying Iraq for 5 years help destroy AQ? Or does it serve as a recruiting poster for AQ? Better think long and hard on that one. Does turning Iraq into a failed state like Bush did help us defeat AQ? And gull, Iran is a Shia state, Osama is a Sunni, they think the other sect are lower than dogs. Historical enemies. Not a historian by trade but I'm thinking Iran and Osama wouldn't be in bed together. So getting that top AQ guy in Iraq is worth 3000 dead, 25,000 wounded, and 500 BILLION, plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead? Or how about the estimated 2 MILLION Iraqis that have fled the country. How can you people defend this fiasco? If Clinton was where Bush is now, would you diehard republicans defend this policy? Or maybe we can win in Iraq if we call ALL democrats traitors. As Iraq sinks deeper into a quagmire the rhetoric from your side gets more hateful. Knock yourselves out with the hate, the realists on our side sees what is happening. Just keep following Bush right off a cliff, he'll end up destroying the gop, all because he's too prideful to admit he failed, massive failure.
Posted by The Fop![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 28, 2007 4:13 PM
"does occupying Iraq for 5 years help destroy AQ? Or does it serve as a recruiting poster for AQ? Better think long and hard on that one."
Okay I thought about it, and it seems pretty elementary.
The jihadists want to take control of all Muslim countries. Most of these countries are ruled by dictators. Some of these dictators support terrorists, despite the terrorists' desire to overthrow these dictators.
So the dictators and the terrorists have a delicate relationship. Together they share a hatred for America and a desire to cut us down to size.
If we get rid of a Muslim dictator, we run the risk that the jihadists will take control of that country. At the same time, we also create an opportunity for democracy to take root. In order for the jihadists to succeed, they must start indiscriminately murdering their fellow Muslims, when they'd much rather by murdering Americans and Jews.
Iraq may be a mess right now, but the majority of Iraqis don't want to be ruled by either Al Qaida, the Iranians, or the likes of Al Sadr. They want the terrorists out of their country and the Iranians to stop meddling in their affairs. They also want to see an end to sectarian violence.
So while there's still a long way to go, we must give strong consideration to the fact that a majority of Iraqis want the same outcome that we want. And having Iraq become a recruiting ground for Al Qaida is one of the main reasons the Iraqi people have come to understand that what we want for them is what they should want for themselves.
In other words, when jihadists start killing their fellow Arabs, then the Arabs will have some incentive to fight them. And we need for Arabs to have that incentive if we want to defeat Islamic extremism without having to nuke the Mideast into oblivion. So having Iraq become a recruiting ground for Al Qaida is a bad thing if Al Qaida takes over the country. But it's a good thing if it motivates the Iraqi people to fight for a normal existence, no matter how long it takes. And we should help them, no matter how long it takes.
Posted by Terrye![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 28, 2007 4:52 PM
So conservative democrat, is it the contention of the Democrats that we must allow AlQaida free reign in Iraq and in the future we must make sure to suck up to any and all dictators? Is that the official policy of the party now? Dictators good, AlQaida good.
Posted by The Yell![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 28, 2007 6:11 PM
A conspiracy by the msm to not report good news. I
You don't consider the capture of the 7/7 mastermind to be at all newsworthy then? You agree the MSM should have ignored that angle completely?
hope they tortured the hell out of this killer for info.
I take it you're being sarcastic, you really just wanted him left a questionnaire with the advice he was entitled not to answer should it prove incriminating...
How soon do you think he was replaced? A week, two weeks?
Admiral Yamamoto was replaced within 24 hours. Should we have bothered?
If Saddam and Osama did have a relationship, does occupying Iraq for 5 years help destroy AQ? Or does it serve as a recruiting poster for AQ? Better think long and hard on that one.
Ok..Umm...yeah, shooting and bombing Al Qaeda hurts them more than leaving them alone.
Does turning Iraq into a failed state like Bush did help us defeat AQ?
I'm glad you agree that Iraq can't be left as a failed state. If you could just communicate that to your partisan leadership...
And gull, Iran is a Shia state, Osama is a Sunni, they think the other sect are lower than dogs. Historical enemies. Not a historian by trade but I'm thinking Iran and Osama wouldn't be in bed together.
Just as a comparison, do you think Shia hate Sunni MORE than Nazi racial supremacists hated the Japanese, or LESS?
So getting that top AQ guy in Iraq is worth 3000 dead, 25,000 wounded, and 500 BILLION, plus hundreds of thousands of Iraqi dead? Or how about the estimated 2 MILLION Iraqis that have fled the country.
Hmm, good point. Better keep it up until we get a few thousand more.
How can you people defend this fiasco?
To you, its defending a partisan plan against righteous Democrat manuevering. To us, it's upholding the United States against a global enemy eager to kill 10, 100, 1000, 10000 of us in our own homes ASAP. We're not defending anything, we're supporting the only offensive plan out there.
If Clinton was where Bush is now, would you diehard republicans defend this policy?
If America had been hit? See above.
Or maybe we can win in Iraq if we call ALL democrats traitors.
Beats letting our Muslim allies around the world hear you'll permit them to be killed without retaliation, and saying nothing against it.
As Iraq sinks deeper into a quagmire the rhetoric from your side gets more hateful.
Whereas your guys have stuck to the gutter from the start.
Knock yourselves out with the hate, the realists on our side sees what is happening. Just keep following Bush right off a cliff, he'll end up destroying the gop, all because he's too prideful to admit he failed, massive failure.
If you guys sweep in 2008, this would still be the talking point when AQ hits another US city: Bush failed. How would YOU win? Try that one.
Posted by Mwalimu Daudi![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 28, 2007 8:06 PM
One can smell the fear (not to mention the Kool-Aid) of CD as he watches his al-Qaeda heroes take a licking.
Posted by Thanos![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/nav-commenters.gif)
| April 28, 2007 10:36 PM
One other thing the MSM missed - the lead up to this ten days ago, care to guess where he was at for that year?
http://noblesseoblige.org/wordpress/?p=820