Jamil Hussein Does Exist?
The AP reports.
The Interior Ministry acknowledged Thursday that an Iraqi police officer whose existence had been denied by the Iraqis and the U.S. military is in fact an active member of the force, and said he now faces arrest for speaking to the media.
Ministry spokesman Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, who had previously denied there was any such police employee as Capt. Jamil Hussein, said in an interview that Hussein is an officer assigned to the Khadra police station, as had been reported by The Associated Press.
The captain, whose full name is Jamil Gholaiem Hussein, was one of the sources for an AP story in late November about the burning and shooting of six people during a sectarian attack at a Sunni mosque.
The U.S. military and the Iraqi Interior Ministry raised the doubts about Hussein in questioning the veracity of the AP’s initial reporting on the incident, and the Iraqi ministry suggested that many news organization were giving a distorted, exaggerated picture of the conflict in Iraq. Some Internet bloggers spread and amplified these doubts, accusing the AP of having made up Hussein’s identity in order to disseminate false news about the war.
Khalaf offered no explanation Thursday for why the ministry had initially denied Hussein’s existence, other than to state that its first search of records failed to turn up his full name. He also declined to say how long the ministry had known of its error and why it had made no attempt in the past six weeks to correct the public record.
Jules Crittenden responds:
My big question: If we were supposed to believe the AP when the AP said the MOI’s Khalaf didn’t know what he was talking about, why are we supposed to believe Khalaf now that the AP says he does know what he’s talking about? Especially when the AP, which has stalwartly stood by Jamil Hussein’s existence as a source, has backed off what Hussein told them about four mosques burning?
Just asking. Has this thing morphed from false but true to true but false?
Fascinating. But let me be the first to say to the Left, before they lose themselves in glee, I don’t see that bloggers have anything to apologize for, nor do I see this story being at an end. The ultimate question is what happened in Hurriya the day six Sunnis were claimed to have been burned alive?
Did it happen? Is Shi’ite domination of one or more ministries trying to cover up violence by Shi’ite factions? Or is Hussein unreliable as a source?
If the story ends up being an expose’ on a troubling Shi’ite dominated Iraqi regime, as opposed to the AP being light on sourcing, so be it. Like most bloggers following this story, all I have ever wanted is the truth.
Indeed and strange it all was.
As I said before, it is important that bloggers / people check what news organizations report. The proof of this: the photos the AP used a while back which were photoshopped. They would have gone unchallenged if it was not for certain conservative bloggers. It now seems that Jamil Hussein does exist: good.
In general, I agree with Ed Morrissey’s take on it:
This certainly tends to discredit the blogospheric attacks on AP if true, as well as the US and Iraqi protestations. However, it doesn’t remove all of the questions about Jamil Hussein and the stories he supposedly sourced, and the first problem is the story that started the entire problem. Neither the AP nor any other news source has independently verified the story of the November burning and shooting death of six in the mosque. In fact, no one can confirm that a fire occurred at a mosque that day, other than the elusive Captain Hussein.
[...]
Whether Jamil Hussein actually exists is really a secondary issue. The fact that the AP used a single source for dozens of inflammatory stories about atrocities in Iraq that still have yet to find any confirmation is almost as disturbing as making the source up.
The AP seems to have been right: its source, Jamil, exists.
Now, please account for certain stories.
Share This
Related Posts
-
Oklahoma’s ‘Infidels’ and Our So-Called ‘Muslims’ (Sotal Iraq, Iraq)
Posted on Jun 18, 2013
-
Iraq’s Latest al-Qaeda ‘Bombshell’ (Khaleej Times, United Arab Emirates)
Posted on Jun 6, 2013
-
Nasrallah vs. Qaradawi: Battling Sheikhs Turning Syria into Repeat of Iraq (Al Mada, Iraq)
Posted on May 8, 2013
-
Stains on a Legacy
Posted on Apr 26, 2013
As I thought, you are a weasel. The substance of the attack on AP was the nonexistence of this individual. Now we are supposed to account for all sorts of other things that the accusers invent.
Your morality is clear, you lack it.
The AP seems to have been right: it’s source, Jamil, exists.
Now, please account for certain stories.
In other words, all the arguments we on the right have put up have now been discredited by fact. Please pose other facts we can seek to discredit.
Sorry.
The proof that the stories were false was the supposed non-existence of the source. Now the source has been found. And ta da, nothing has changed.
Classic.
You’re not helping your credibility here, Michael.
So, julie, Cali and takhallus, theoretically if the AP ran a story across the wires that named a single source who claimed that one of you was a mass murderer, you wouldn’t have a problem with that? Interesting view of journalistic ethics!
CStanley,
The original story was not single sourced and the AP witnessed fire damage to the mosque in question. After the “controversy” erupted the AP recanvassed the neighborhood and found more eyewitnesses to the imolation. The story never hinged on Capt. Hussein’s testimony as some on the Right want to claim.
Cstanley
theoretically?
Fox & CNN and many others in the MSM along with the government routinely make accusations or claims based on an un-identified sources. I find it interesting your singling out AP for their ethics when you consider the lies spun about Iraq before and after the invasion.
You don’t have problem with the government lying to you in order to launch a pre-emptive attack on a country who posed no iminent threat to the United States?
Interesting view on government ethics?
I am getting really f*cking tired of seeing that “Beirut Photoshop smoke” story trotted out as “evidence” of “pervasive” “liberal media bias.” Intellectually, it’s about the same as bringing up the Mark Foley scandal over and over and over in hopes of tarring the entire Congress as a group of pedophiles.
Whack job Dan Rhiel says: “I don’t see that bloggers have anything to apologize for…”
How about for being wrong? The thug who runs the Interior Ministry has now threatened to arrest Captain Hussein fro talking to the AP. I’m sure Dan’s OK with that.
corvus,
I have no desire to single out the AP, it just so happens that they happened to be the subject that was being discussed. I do hold them to a high standard though because like it or not, most MSM stories are simply regurgitations of their wire reports.
Blue,
If you’d like to present a link to an unbiased source that verifies what you are saying, I’d be interested to see it. The accounts that I’ve read indicate that there were many AP stories that were sourced only to Jalil Hussein without any corroboration.
“The original story was not single sourced and the AP witnessed fire damage to the mosque in question.”
Completely false. The lede of the Qais al-Bashir post on 11-24 that started everything:
“Shiite militiamen grabbed six Sunnis as they left Friday worship services, doused them with kerosene and burned them alive near Iraqi soldiers who did not intervene, police Capt. Jamil Hussein said.”
source: http://www.boston.com/news/world/middleeast/articles/2006/11/24/sunnis_say_shiites_burn_their_buildings/?rss_id=Boston.com+%2F+News
Further, in the follow-up story, the AP unquestioningly quoted an account by the Association of Muslim Scholars, a group with acknowledged ties to the Sunni insurgency, as stating that “And the Association of Muslim Scholars, the most influential Sunni organization in Iraq, said even more victims were burned to death in attacks on the four mosques. It claimed a total of 18 people had died in an inferno at the al-Muhaimin mosque.”
Neat trick. That mosque was never attacked, nor set on fire, and not a single soul died there.
It was one of now four mosques (Ahbab al-Mustafa, Nidaa Allah, al-Muhaimin and al-Qaqaqa) the AP claimed were attacked with RPGs, heavy machine guns, and assualt rifles before being burned. We now know only one mosque (Nidaa Allah, I think) that was lightly damaged by a molotov cocktail thrown into the doorway.
The bodies of the 18 that “died in an inferno” inside the unattacked mosque disappeared, along with the other three mosques, in subsequent AP reports. AP has neither issued a retraction, nor a correction, perhaps figuring some people were dumb enough not to notice that 75% of the mosques claimed attacked and 75% of the dead (or a total of 24, 18 from the AMS, plus the “burning six”) completely disappeared.
Apparently, some are gullible enough to buy that dodge. I’m not one of them.
Original AP Story:
The gunmen attacked the four mosques with rocket-propelled grenades, machine guns and automatic rifles. Residents said the militiamen prevented them from entering the burned buildings to remove the dead, and they and Hussein said Shiite-dominated police and Iraqi military stood idly by.
Notice the mention of what the residents said. That means Hussein was not the only source.
Classy there guys.
We’ll just add this to the list of reasons the post about “just because we were wrong once doesn’t mean you shouldn’t listen to us anymore”.
If there’s a Hell, Malkin and Riehl are going all the way down.
By the way folks. What do you think Jamil Hussein’s life is going to be like going forward? First the Iraqi government (and US military) declare he never existed. Now they say he does, in jail.
You’ve done a heckuva job there you investigative bloggers.
I think Greg Sargeant over at The Horses Mouth says it best.
Davebo,
So, let me get this straight: asking the AP to verify its stories can’t possibly be a sign of wanting to know the truth; instead it is unquestionably an attempt to discredit a media source that is reporting information that fuels the insurgency?
Oh, sure, that makes perfect sense.
The Interior Ministry is corrupt and probably responsible for the lynching of Saddam. The Wingnuts jumped on this story for partisan reasons. The sad fact is that Jamil Hussein may now meet the samme fate as Saddan Hussein. Will MvdG and Michele ‘I hate Ayrabs’ Malkin shead any tears when Jamil is killed and totured by Sadr militia in the Interior Ministry. I think not, their ‘jounalistic integrity’ is safe from the danger while investigating from their 101st keyboards.
In a word, yes. Because they did ask the AP to confirm the story, at which time the AP actually replied that they had gone back and verified the source. A pretty incredible thing to do in response to a bunch of bloggers wouldn’t you agree?
But that wasn’t enough for them. Marc Danziger insisted the AP provide him with the sources phone number! He also claimed to have friends who were Iraqi reporters looking into it. I’ve already asked him to provide the names and phone numbers of his sources who swore the man never existed but he’s gone a bit silent of late.
And what neither Malkin or the others never ever questioned was the word of the Iraqi Ministry of Interior or the US Military. Who has better credibility on telling the truth to the American public? The Iraqi Interior Ministry? (Home of the largest non American operated torture center in Iraq and completely infiltrated by Shia militia personel.) Or the US Military? (Jessica Lynch, Pat Tillman, and on and on and on..)
So the AP is fueling the insurgency? I guess if the AP would just pull all it’s reporters out of Iraq and quit covering the war everything would be hunky dory eh?
You’ll excuse me if I must note the irony that today is the anniversary of the National Day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer, declared by President James Buchanan in 1861.
Celebrate it as you wish.
Just curious folks, how many run of the mill Iraqis do you think commonly read the Associated Press?
But you’re right, the media is indeed fueling the insurgency.
Just not the one in Iraq.
Better learn to live with it.
wierd thread. you’re probably right that this and all other shi’ite atrocities are an invention of the evil liberal media. If we just stuck to Fox as our news source we’d know that Saddam and bin Laden are buddies, we found the WMD, and we’re winning over there.
This is modern McCarthyism, an attempt to smear and discredit the MSM for 1) the profit of bloggers, 2) in the defense of an indefensible view of events in Iraq.
Let’s recall that this started out as “The MSM won’t write about all the good things happening in Iraq.” Now, when even the president admits Iraq is circling the drain, the attack continues because to abandon it is to abandon the founding premise of the multitude of denialist blogs.
The people hostile to truth are not at AP, they are writing denialist blogs, slandering reporters in hopes of aggrandizing themselves, and finding scapegoats to blame for their own intellectual failures.
Davebo,
I didn’t say that the AP is fueling the insurgency, I said that this information was fueling it. Which is why it is important to know whether it was true or not. If different sources give different accounts of an incident then I feel it is fair to dig for more clarity, and at the end of the day I partly agree with you about the trustworthiness of some of the govt sources but I’m not as inclined as you are to give the AP the complete benefit of the doubt (and certainly not as inclined to crucify those who questioned them on it).
Either way I believe you are incorrect. Iraqis know what’s happening around them in Iraq, they don’t need the AP to report it to them.
The insurgency is fueled by one thing and one thing only. The desire for power, control over the billions in potential oil money and revenge against different sects going back over 800 years.
OK, what more do you want them to provide? You are holding the AP to a much higher standard than is commonly applied to journalists. Why? Because someone photoshopped two dark clouds into three?
I’m not crucifying anyone. And that’s a rather tasteless application of the term. I’m merely holding them to the same standards they applied to the media in this case.
And they are failing miserably.
Of all the people, politicians, media pundits, Iraqi exiles, DOD spokespersons, etc. who have told you so many lies over the past 5 years and done such incredible harm to our nation and the world as a whole, you guys decide to apply your energy into questioning a story that had absolutely no viable impact.
I’ve got to say, as I’m feeling cynical this morning – what assurances do we have they didn’t make up THIS story to legitimize the others?
How so? I’m not trained in journalism so it would be interesting if Joe or Shaun or some other resident expert would comment, but I believe that journalistic standards include multiple sourcing (and no, I’m not terribly satisfied with the statement in the original story that there were other witnesses: it’s one thing to not name names, but some background should be given as to who these witnesses were. Did they have any official status, or were they residents of the area? Or were they members of a Sunni militia whose account of this event may have been completely false or overblown in order to stir up anger against the Shiites?)
If these standards are overly strict, then you have a point, but to me these seem like common sense practices for journalists and personally I’d apply the same standards to other news agencies as well.
Cstanley
It’s funny how you look at AP and other news agencies through a particular microscope but you supported an invasion based on half truths and un-reliable unknown sources. When I read people who fell for the rosey scenarios before the invasion many still seem to be reaching for something that supports their original position. The MSM in USA is a shadow of what it once was and that’s a shame, I’d much rather have a ferocious skeptical media than the hyper-nationalistic version we’re getting now. And to say stories like AP’s are fueling the insurgency implies you still haven’t accepted reality.
Ahhhh Julie…. working for the AP are we?
For all those criticizing me, when o when did I say that Hussein didn’t exist? If I remember correctly, I constantly used “appears” and “seems”. In fact, my main focus was that it was – at least – suspicious and that it as such is a good thing that bloggers investigated it.
And I am really not worried about “credibility”. Those who say that I lose credibility make a habit out of it so it seems. Whenever I post something controversial, they start talking about credibility.
The story was very suspicious. It should have been investigated. The AP published falsehoods in the past, bloggers uncovered it.
I also always said that this didn’t mean that the violence in Iraq is “fake”. It was not about whether or not Iraq is torn apart by civil war, it was about whether or not the AP reported falsehoods or made up sources.
All of it didn’t start out about Hussein. It started out about the stories for which the AP used him as a source. Some of those stories still have to be accounted for.
Frankly, the AP is THE example of the arrogance of major organizations. Its too arrogant to answer questions. The arrogance of the powerful seems to have taken over the AP.
They have to answer when people ask questions.
Lastly – again – Julie I had a good laugh about your comment. Whether or not you work for the AP, your comment was absolutely hilarious. “WE have to account”
Muwhaha
Ahh.. the meaning of “is” defense.
Hey Joe, here’s an idea, why not add Dan Reihl to your list of contributors.
Ya know, just to counterbalance the new conservative tint here.
;0)
Everyone in this post is taking everyone else in this post out of context in my opinion. Do I care to expound on that? Nope.
Suck it up, the AP backed up its story, provided the source, and made the uber right blogs and their enablers…this includes you MvdG…look like a bunch of harping idiots for doing the neocon twist with Malkin and Reihl, both of which are over the top so often you deserve to be made a fool of for beliving in the first place (picture Springer with a far right bent). Print retractions of the indictments made against the AP, and show you have some backbone. Afterall those that jumped on this story were playing follow the leader, and attacking the lastest far right whipping boy (NYT is the usuall target) and got led into a self made credability trap.
Don’t blame AP, blame Malkin and Reihl, and definately don’t make excuses for yourselves.
I get it! I was confused.
By “AP” you really mean “Administration of the President”.
Make perfect sense now.
Frankly, the Administration is THE example of the arrogance of major organizations. Its too arrogant to answer questions. The arrogance of the powerful seems to have taken over the Administration.
Another thing. We don’t want to believe the Shi’ites are committing atrocities? Are we now anti-Sunni, because they’re the “insurgents?” But wait, we want to attack and disarm the Shi’ite militias. No, wait again. The Shi’ite militias include the police and Iraqi army. I’m missing the point, aren’t I? This is all about discrediting or defending the media.
I’m not going to go into the whole controversy. On the one hand, investigating questionable news stories is a good thing, on the other, pretending that the supposed non-existence of the source wasn’t the centerpiece of the argument is disingenuous and depends on poor memories on the part or the readers.
I have a question for you Michael, don’t take it as an accusation or recrimination, but I would like to know. Does it make you at all uneasy the idea that this man could have been placed at great risk or may even be imprisoned or killed because of the extra attention he’s gotten? I understand wanting to investigate sources, but when you do it in Iraq, the result might be the literal elimination of the source, so I would think one would want to tread carefully.
The idea that the whole issue was if the source existed is absurd. Since they (malkin, pat, ect) bloged about possible identities and such to say that was the only issue is to ignore reality. They were trying to check a story and couldn’t find facts to back it up. Big shock they wanted to check the source the AP listed. The world was informed that no one in the US military or Iraq police new who they were talking about. That wouldn’t raise questions since the rest of the story seemed false? Great now there is a guy, and back to checking out the story. That the AP has since changed their reporting of the incident (no retraction though) they would seemingly have to admit there was some problem with the story, but they don’t do they? Admit that using questionable sources and not fact checking worth a damn is a bad way to report the news? God forbid.
Apologists for trash media (Malkin,Fox,Reihl,Rush,) best comedy anywhere.
And now I delete my bookmark to you. Too bad, sometimes I have found you interesting. But here you are more than wrong. Due to irresponsible charges from these hacks, the man is now in danger, apparently with the encouragement of American forces who want the Iraqis to control the media.
Perhaps the first step would be to make damn sure this man doesn’t get killed over this. Second would be to apologize for irresponsible assertions challenging facts on the ground that these weasels have not a change of knowing about. Third would be to apologize for promoting such a wrongheaded war in the first place.
tata
Comment #10, Confederate Yankee1: “Apparently, some are gullible enough to buy that dodge. I’m not one of them.”
Confederate Yankee2: “We also know that “police Capt. Jamil Hussein,” who was the key witness leaning credibility to the AP’s allegations, simply does not exist.” http://confederateyankee.mu.nu/archives/207320.php
The AP made his name public.
Wow, shocker, that the standards for sources of intelligence should be different than standards for journalistic sources. Who’dathunkit?
Did the administration misread the intelligence, possibly because of their preexisting biases? Probably. Is that a serious error that puts responsibility on them? Yep. Does it mean that they should only have used named sources and found multiple sources for all intelligence information? No, I would not apply that standard. I’d simply say that those who examine intelligence should be more cautious in overinterpreting it or interpreting it with bias (see the post by MvdG about “Why Hawks Win”, for example.) And it also probably indicates that Bush’s doctrine of preemptive war is most likely a bad idea: because we can’t be sure enough about intelligence to accurately assess future risks. Unfortunately that means we probably have to allow some attacks to occur before we act in our own defense.
It’s getting boring, I know, but as usual… I agree completely. Well said Christine.
m.croche,
Wow, you found an obscure blogger who said what you wanted. Not one othe ones that was named as making that statment but still……GOLD STAR!!!!