(Bumped to the top – Originally posted Jan 9th, 1015hrs PST)
I’ve been in touch with Bill Costlow (the CPATT (Civilian Police Assistance Training Team) representative) since he has been back in-country and I have a few interesting developments on this story.
First, the AP story:
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.
But guess what Bill just confirmed? Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf never acknowledged that there was a Capt. Jamil Hussein assigned to the Khadra station, he confirmed to the AP that there was a Capt. Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim assigned there. Apparently he is the source for the AP even though he still, to this day (according to Bill Costlow), denies being the source.
So what do we have so far?
That the AP has lied again in their response. The AP specifically stated that Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf acknowledged Jamil Hussein exists when he did no such thing. He acknowledged a completely different name the AP gave him but not a Jamil Hussein.
Then, the AP’s source denies he is the source.
Bill updates:
The AP has been citing Cpt Jamil Hussein Gulaim. The police officer’s actual name is "Jamil Ghdaab Gulaim".
Apparently the AP accepts this as the source in question (see their article and also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jamil_Hussein)
I guess the real answer here is that if the AP had used his correct name to begin with, the MOI could have responded faster.
I think many people are also missing something here:
When a police officer tells a reporter that six murders have occured and the bodies were taken to a non-existant morgue, investigators want to know why — this has nothing to do with cover ups, as some media reports seem to insinuate — the idea of hiding a mere six killings in Bagdad is laughable.
He further updates when questioned about his possible arrest:
I don’t see CPT Gulaim being charged with anything — he denies speaking with any media and the AP isn’t pushing the issue here.
So is the Jamil Hussein saga really over?
I think not.
UPDATE
I have asked Bill to double check and triple check the fact that Hussein is not in this guys name at all since the ramifications of it not being in there is huge. It’s a huge no-no If the AP used a pseudonym without acknowledging that fact.
UPDATE II
Patterico is a bit dubious:
Color me dubious. Curt seems to be leaping straight to the conclusion that, if Costlow is right, the AP has misreported what it was told by Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf, the MOI spokesman. But there’s another possibility, that Curt would do well to keep in mind: that Khalaf said one thing to the AP, and another to Costlow.
I’m reading between the lines here, but it sounds like Costlow is getting his information from Khalaf. If that’s true, it would be a good idea to keep in mind that we don’t know whether to trust Khalaf. Sure, the AP could have gravely misrepresented, in an easily refutable manner, what Brig. Abdul-Karim Khalaf told them. But it seems to me to be more likely that Khalaf is just another Iraqi telling everybody what they want to hear.
Point taken. As I and many others have said in the past the existence of Jamil is not the big story. It’s all the evidence, or lack thereof, that this Burning Six incident ever happened and the reporting done by the AP of the "incident" using Iraqi stringers.
Now if Bill can confirm that Jamil’s given name does not have Hussein in it then there is just that much more evidence to prove that the AP is misreporting the facts in this story.
UPDATE III
Bill Costlow has just confirmed that Jamil does not have Hussein in his name, and he has also confirmed that the MoI spokesperson DID speak to the AP and confirmed that he was their source:
Curt,
Seems like every time I talk to somebody about this guy, his name changes. His personnel record says his name is: Jamil Gulaim (Redacted).
Spokesman BG Abdul-Kareem has spoken with members of the AP in Baghdad and has confirmation that he is their source. That said, CPT Jamil still denies ever speaking to them.
As far as the MOI is concerned, CPT Jamil gave the AP bad information: there’s still no evidence the six murders occurred.
V/R
Bill
(I have redacted the real last name which has been confirmed to NOT be Hussein due to fear for his safety)
So there you are. I have responded back to Bill with the question how the BG can confirm that he is the source if he denied being the source?
That being said, the AP used a pseudonym for Jamil without acknowledging that fact. Confederate Yankee did an interview with five bigwigs in the world of journalism asking about the use of pseudonym’s in reports and got the following:
"Also, if a reporter identifies a source by a pseudonym he has an obligation to tell the reader that he is not using the source’s real name and explaining why not. You can’t just make up a name and use it in a story. That’s not reporting, that’s fiction writing."
"Normally, if a reporter is introducing a pseudonym for purpose of concealing identity so as to protect a source from harm, this would be disclosed. "Names were changed to protect…."
"If the reporter did not state clearly in the articles that a pseudonym was being used and the reason it was being used, yes it was a breach of ethics. Simply put it was not true and was deceiving the consumer of the information–both fundamental breaches of the ultimate responsibility the journalist has to the audience of the work."
Breach of ethics most definitely. The fact they reported on a incident with no real evidence it occurred and when presented with evidence that this thing did not occur they put their heels down and yelled "we wrote it so it MUST be true" is just as bad in my book. They reported rumors and innuendo to keep their storyline flowing. Namely that Iraq is a tinderbox of violence, chaos and destruction.
UPDATE IV
Don’t quite follow Allah’s logic here:
I would think the bigger scoop is the fact that we now have independent confirmation, via Curt’s source, that the man known to AP readers as “Jamil Hussein” exists and is indeed a police officer at Khadra.
A man exists who denies he is the source, whose name is NOT Jamil Hussein…that’s it. The only other information we get is that the Iraqi MoI has confirmed that he was the source for the AP which I question since how in the world do they confirm he is the source if he DENIES being the source?
UPDATE V
Received an answer to the question on how the MoI can confirm an employee is a source for the AP when the man denies being the source:
Appreciate the help Bill. I still don’t understand how the BG could confirm he is the source if he denies being the source tho.
There has been some sideline discussion between MOI PA and the AP. We’re at a point where the MOI needs to look to the future and establish a new relationship with the AP — hopefully it’ll be a friendship that enables them to avoid issues like this in the future.
V/R
Bill
I don’t know about you but this sounds suspiciously like the MoI has agreed to admit he is the source for the AP in exchange for a better relationship with the AP…..
UPDATE VI
Allah once more:
Look, you can’t claim for weeks on end (replete with mocking graphics) that a guy doesn’t exist and then, when evidence emerges that he does, turn on a dime and trumpet the fact that he used a pseudonym as HUGE news. It’s news. That’s as much as can be said for it.
I said its huge news when the AP has breeched its own ethics, as Confederate Yankee has pointed out here. Whether you personally feel that it’s big news depends on personal opinion I suppose. I feel it’s big, Allah doesn’t…so be it.
As far as turning on a dime, I disagree. When the AP announced he was real I was skeptical. Now we have confirmation that he denies being the source (to which Allah attributes to the source being afraid for his safety, when he has no facts to back this assertion up, just opinion….I mean do ya think he may actually NOT be the source?) along with the fact that it now appears the AP and MoI have come to an agreement (see update V) in which the MoI agrees he is the source and they will now have a better relationship.
The whole thing smells to me. We have a story where six Sunni’s are burned alive along with four mosques. The four mosques is quickly changed to one. We have a total of four witnesses. One recanted and three wouldn’t give their names. We have no video or pictures of the scene, no identifications of the bodies. No family members of the victims have come forward. There was no outcry from the Sunni community which causes many in the press to dismiss the story. The AP reported the story was also confirmed via Hospital and Morgue workers at a hospital who has no morgue, then the story changed to the bodies being taken to a cemetary immediately after.
Then on top of all this we have a police spokesperson whose name does not exist. At first, due to this name not existing, we all (well, most of us) believed he was fake. Then the AP comes out and announces that the MoI has admitted he does exist. The AP writes a story in which they explicitedly state the MoI agreed Jamil Hussein exists. But hold your horses, the man they fingered is not named Jamil Hussein AND he denies being the source.
The whole friggin story is HUGE to me since if anyone really believes this is an isolated incident they are deluding themselves.
UPDATE VII
What Ace said:
You also can’t claim for weeks (replete with dismissive, haughty I-shall-not-dignify-these-accusations-with-a-response stonewalling) that of course a "Capt. Jamil Hussein" exists, why we’ve been talking to him for years, it’s your own stupid faults you can’t find "Capt. Jamil Hussein," why, if you were over here in Iraq rather than on your soft white asses in your climate-controlled cubicles you could find "Capt. Jamil Hussein" easily yourself (all the stores sell him in six-packs), and then turn on a dime and claim that of course everyone should have known you were using a fake name, and had they just searched through all possible names containing the first name "Jamil," everyone could have easily confirmed the existence of a "Jamil Not Hussein" themselves.
UPDATE VIII
Don’t you just love the fact that the White House press secretary checks out the blogs? Here is Tony Snow on the Hugh Hewitt show today:
HH: As we saw during the summer war between Hezbollah and Israel, Tony Snow, Hezbollah went to such lengths as to stage atrocities, buildings blown up, and victims left in there.
TS: Yeah.
HH: Are you, as the head of the White House communications operation, prepared to immediately get out there and quarrel with that and stop those sorts of stories from metastasizing?
TS: Yeah, I am looking forward to meeting Captain Jumil Hussein, but other than that, yes. You’ve seen the latest on that, right?
HH: No, I haven’t. I haven’t read today. Is he back and not existing again?
TS: He’s back to non-existence.
HH: (laughing) But that’s the new media war…
TS: Yeah.
The AP, always fodder for a good laugh.
See author page
Surely, sir, you can’t mean to insinuate that they lied to us? I’m am shocked! Shocked, I say!
Excerpt and link added at Lt. Kije identified, facing arrest? — Day 5 (Updated and bumped)
You’ve done a remarkable job on this story.
I have a question about the 61 Jamil Hussein stories since April 2006. It’s my impression that most if not all the stories involved Shia on Sunni violence, but I haven’t been able to tell since I don’t have a Lexis-Nexis account. Is there someplace I can go to find this information?
So, what they’ve done is gone from using questionable stringers to deliberately misquoting people in an attempt to cover a bogus source.
The AP has the admission by the Interior Minister official. Does Costlow have the audio or transcript?
I challenge floppingaces to challenge AP to produce the audio or transcript of this interview. AP will give it to you. Because apparently floppingaces now believes this Iraqi Ministry official was somehow lying, or never spoke the word “Hussein”.
Or another option is to lay the case to rest and avoid being embarassed by the AP once again.
How retarded is this?
Should I also whip out a velvet glove, slap them across the face, and challenge them to a duel?
Read the whole post and then get back to me, I posted the email I received from the CPATT rep, which explains everything. I also asked him to double check that this Jamil guy has NO Hussein in his name. When I hear from him I will post an update. If he does have a Hussein in his name then we have a Jamil Hussein who denies being the AP source. If he doesn’t have the Hussein in his name then we have a guy who denies being the source along with the fact that the AP used a pseudonym without disclosing that fact for a guy who denies being their source.
Either way you shake it, the AP is full of it.
Apparently AP seems to think that handing out such drivel for the world to suck up as undeniable truth is an accepted way of doing business.
I say it’s no way to run a news service that millions of people a day are exposed to and take outright lies and deception as fact, then go on and formulate governmental policy, form opinions and cast their fortunes upon such non news!
There has got to be some lawyering firm willing to take on possibly the biggest class action suit of the century! The harm they do with such disinformation, aka read as unverifiable, meaning rumor mongering causing millions of dollars daily of potential misspending by our govts, blown speculation by stock investors, not to mention the emotional distress caused to individuals as well!
No this a very good case to take up. First amendment only exists in the US! Take it to international court, (they hate everybody)!
Now I realize that verifying sources can be tough, especially within the borders of Iraq today, but they at a mininum have the responsibility to disclose that the source of the story may or may be speaking the truth and as such lable the report as rumor and file it correctly until it can indeed be proven.
But that young lady from AP so far, seems to have only the ability to change feet that protrude from her mouth. Quit a trick I will say, but I tire of it.
AP I suggest you find your cousin Vinnie. The claimant side will have one hella line up!
Then even the press industry can be taught a valuable lesson, if you can’t or won’t police your own industry, which is beyond obvious you lake the will or ability to do so, then others will. And we will use the WILL of the people to do so!
Who’s in?
I think there is a very valuable piece of research which, unfortunately, I have neither the time nor resources to do.
As someone else has pointed out, virtually all of the 61 stories of Jamil Hussein have him claiming shi’ite on sunni violence. So here is my research project: go through the 61 stories, and count up the dead and wounded sunnis. Then go through all of the other AP stories of shi’ite on sunni violence through the same time period. What percentage of the shi’ite on sunni violence is simply the uncorroborated word of Capt Hussein?
The AP keeps trying to divert the subject into whether or not the AP invented Jamil Hussein. The real question here is whether or not the Iraqi “Civil War” is an invention — whether invented by AP or by propagandists using the AP as (willing or unwilling) dupes. And Jamil Hussein’s existence is only relevant to the extent that we’d like to ask him some questions that would give us a better idea of just how much of the reported shi’ite on sunni violence in Iraq really happened. If he does not exist, then probably most of the violence sourced to his reports didn’t happen. If he does exist, then we’d need to get some more information about him and from him to decide whether or not to believe that the events that he reported really occurred.
Great job. Thanks for the update. Keep after them. Wouldn’t it be imaginable that there is an terrorist working for the AP and he made up the whole story to begin with? Hmm…
Very interesting … after several days of lower than average death tolls out of Baghdad, we have two large Baghdad Bodies reports from Reuters. Exactly 40 for yesterday and exactly 60 for today. As usual, one sentance, no specific source credited:
BAGHDAD – Police recovered the bodies of 60 people with gunshot wounds and signs of torture from various parts of Baghdad in the 24 hours to Wednesday evening, an Interior Ministry source said.
This puts the monthly body count back where it “belongs”.
Why am I not surprised? I excerpted and linked in Part 36 of my Jamilgate series.
Okay so the AP’s source exists (i.e. was not fabricated out of whole cloth) if you can believe the MoI. The AP has been using the wrong name all along, assuming they weren’t given the wrong name by the source who denies he is the source. If the AP used the wrong name, knowing it was the wrong name, then they are very much guilty of an ethical lapse. Why is it important to clearly identify a psuedonym as a psuedonym? When you say, in a news report, that Captain Jamil Hussein of the Baghdad Police reports or confirms some factual tidbit, we glean much for that introduction. First, the source is a police captain on the Baghdad Police Department. Second, since the source is named, the person is presumably authorized by his superiors to communicate with the press because he isn’t acting anonymously. Third, because he is not hiding his name, he is not afraid to be cross-examined regarding the information he is presenting. By using a pseudonym without admitting to it, he achieves all this without the danger of facing repercussions from his superiors or elsewhere, and he can avoid having to talk to anyone double-checking the veracity of his testimony.
Assuming the facts we know we know are in fact factual, AP either knowingly used an unacknowledged pseudonym, or was misled into using it. If the latter is true, I would expect AP to acknowledge it, aggressively investigate who that person really is, why they lied and also why their verification process failed to reveal that the good Captain wasn’t who he said he was. That is what bemuses me: how does a news agency validate an official government source? It shouldn’t be very easy to do or people would be doing it quite frequently. Perhaps markers that work in other parts of the world, such as presence and acceptance in a government facility, are sufficient in those places, but it would seem even then AP would want to know that they were talking to someone with a specific name.
I don’t think this is huge Curt, at least nowhere near as important as the impact of fabricated news stories. But as is often the case, it isn’t the crime but the coverup that screws the pooch. Unless the AP has knowingly perpetrated some fraud, they have much more to loose by being obstinate and evasive than by just owning up. The only good reason to resist that approach is that they will then be obligated to reinvestigate every story that Captain Jamil was a source for–a daunting task.
Oh, I agree that the ethical breech isn’t as huge as the overall story but it does point to a one ethical lapse, which in turn makes it that much more plausible that they knowingly printed a story they knew to be false, or at least suspected it was false as other news organizations did.