The following is an archived copy of a message sent to a Discussion List run by the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
Views expressed in this archived message are those of the author, not of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq.
[Main archive index/search] [List information] [Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq Homepage]
BBC Radio 4 news bulletins have been carrying reports all day. In addition to the Today programme there was a long feature on The World at One - and PM has just reported on it, including a question to a pundit (sorry, didn't catch his name) as to whether it has ever happened before - not to the pundit's knowledge (!?). Cathy Aitchison ------------- In message <E18h6JQ-00036Femail@example.com>, Sanjoy Mahajan <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes >Here are all the articles so far in the UK press, all from today (7 >Feb), in the order included below: > >1. Financial Times, `Government document contains errors' (p. 2) >2. Independent, `The Iraq crisis: propaganda - Downing Street accused > of dossier plagiarism old articles' (p. 2) >3. Press Association, `No. 10 accused of plagiarising Iraq dossier' >4. Guardian, `UK dossier lifted evidence' (p. 5) > >I found no articles in the US press, surprise, or anywhere else. If >you find any let me know. > >I've written to the "Democracy Now!" radio programme in America -- the >only free speech on the airwaves there -- pointing them to the Channel >4 story. They've interviewed Glen before so maybe again. > >The FT article skillfully downplays the story. The headline mentions >'errors' rather than plagiarism or even 'lifting' (the Guardian). The >lead paragraph says only that `researchers' claim it is a >cut-and-paste job, as if it's just one of many opinions on the report. > >Perhaps the news broke too late last night for UK papers to include a >full story (though not an excuse for US papers, who have at least an >extra 5 hours). That might explain why the Independent article was so >thin, even though of major papers it is the most antiwar. Maybe the >Mirror will run a proper article tomorrow. I fear that papers who >covered it today, even if badly, will say, "No need to cover it >again." And by Sunday the Observer, which is pro-war anyway, will >think the story is no longer 'has legs. With enough pressure on them >they might change their tune. > >-Sanjoy > > >====================================================================== > >Financial Times (London) >7 February 2003, London Edition, p. 2 > >Government document contains errors >By STEPHEN FIDLER > >DATELINE: LONDON > >A government document on Iraq - praised this week by Colin Powell, the >US secre tary of state - contains factual errors and has been >described by researchers as a "cut-and-paste job". > >The document was meant to highlight Iraq's efforts to deceive weapons >inspectors. But large sections were drawn, without attribution, from >three articles on Iraq's security services, one of them published in >1997. In his address to the United Nations on Wednesday, Mr Powell >described the document as "a fine paper . .. which describes in >exquisite detail Iraqi deception activities". > >Yet in one section, the British document describes the Iraqi military >security service as having been established in 1992 - and as having >moved to a new headquarters two years earlier in 1990. > >Glen Rangwala, a politics lecturer at Cambridge University who >uncovered the errors, said officials had apparently incorrectly copied >part of a document re-lating to one security service in a section >devoted to another. The copy of the three papers - Mr Rangwala called >it plagiarism - had resulted in different spellings for Arabic names, >including the Ba'ath party, Mr Rangwala said. > >Downing Street stood by the document, which described itself as >drawing upon "a number of sources including intelligence material". >Downing Street would not say who compiled it. > >Ibrahim al-Marashi, a research associate at the Center for >Non-Proliferation Studies in Monterey, California - an author of one >of the reports used as a source - said: "I know it's cut-and-paste >because they have copied a lot of my mistakes." He said he had rushed >the article to the Middle East Review of International Affairs. > >The document, released to journalists and published on Downing >Street's website, also copied most of a diagram Mr al-Marashi said had >taken months of research - without attribution or permission. > >Two other researchers were quoted extensively: 1997 articles by Sean >Boyne and a 2002 article by Ken Gause, both of which appeared in >Jane's Intelligence Review. Chris Aaron, its editor, said it was not >unusual for UK governments to use a combination of publicly available >material with some intelligence - but the mistakes raised questions >about how carefully it had been compiled. > >Copyright 2003 The Financial Times Limited > > >====================================================================== > >The Independent (London) >7 February 2003, p. 2 > >THE IRAQ CRISIS: PROPAGANDA - DOWNING STREET ACCUSED OF >DOSSIER PLAGIARISM OLD ARTICLES >By NIGEL MORRIS POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT > >THE GOVERNMENT was accused last night of plagiarising sections of an >intelligence dossier on Iraq from a postgraduate student. > >Channel 4 News reported that paragraphs had been lifted from an >article in the Middle East Review of International Affairs last year >by Ibrahim al-Marashi, a student from Monterey, California. The >analysis, published on the Downing Street website, was called Iraq - >Its Infrastructure of Concealment Deception and Intimidation. > >Glen Rangwala, an academic at Cambridge University, had spotted the >student's work because passages containing typographical errors were >repeated in the dossier, Channel 4 said. > >The document was cited by Colin Powell, the US Secretary of State, in >his address to the UN on Wednesday. A Downing Street statement said >the report was accurate and that it had not claimed "exclusivity". > >Copyright 2003 Newspaper Publishing PLC > > >====================================================================== > >Press Association >7 February 2003; HOME NEWS > >NO. 10 ACCUSED OF PLAGIARISING IRAQ DOSSIER >By Tim Ross and Andrew Woodcock, PA News > >Tony Blair was today facing accusations that Downing Street had >plagiarised its latest dossier of evidence against Saddam Hussein from >out-of-date material. > >No 10 insisted the dossier released on Monday was "accurate" and had >never claimed exclusive authorship. > >But the Tories said this explanation "utterly failed" to deny or >excuse the allegations that the 19-page intelligence document was >substantially plagiarised. > >The dossier was designed to help win over sceptics by outlining Iraq's >alleged efforts to hide its weapons of mass destruction. > >It said UN weapons inspectors were outnumbered by 200 to one by Iraqi >agents trying to deceive them, and provided "up to date details" of >Iraq's security organisations. The Downing Street notice introducing >the document said: "Iraq's campaign of obstruction against United >Nations weapons inspectors is set out in a new report released by the >government". > >US Secretary of State Colin Powell recommended it to the world in his >keynote UN presentation on Wednesday, in which he called the document >a "fine paper". > >But experts dismissed the dossier as largely copied from three >different articles, Channel 4 News reported. > >One article which the programme claimed was a major source for the >Downing Street document was written by a postgraduate student, Ibrahim >al-Marashi, from Monterey, California. > >He was researching material relating to the build-up to the 1991 Gulf >War and not to the current situation, it was alleged. > >Channel 4 News reported that Glen Rangwala, an academic at Cambridge >University, spotted that large chunks of the student's paper had been >copied to form parts of the No 10 dossier, called, Iraq - Its >Infrastructure of Concealment Deception and Intimidation. > >Dr Rangwala, a lecturer in politics, told the programme: "The British >Government's dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 to 16 are >copied directly from that document word for word, even the grammatical >errors and typographical mistakes." > >The programme said one six-paragraph section of the Downing Street >document that detailed Saddam's special security organisation had been >lifted from the student's article. > >A Downing Street spokesman said: "The report was put together by a >range of government officials. > >"As the report itself makes clear, it was drawn from 'a number of >sources including intelligence material'. > >"It does not identify or credit any sources, but nor does it claim any >exclusivity of authorship. > >"We consider the text as published to be accurate." > >But international affairs expert Dan Plesch, from the Royal United >Services Institute in London, told Channel 4 News that the alleged >plagiarism was "scandalous". > >"This document is clearly presented to the British public as the >product of British intelligence and it clearly is nothing of the >kind." > >He said it was "dressed up as the best MI6 and our other international >partners can produce on Saddam". > >"The word 'scandalous' is, I think, greatly overused in our political >life but it certainly applies to this." > >Shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin said: "The Government's >reaction to the Channel 4 News report utterly fails to explain, deny >or excuse the allegations made in the programme. > >"This document has been cited by the Prime Minister and Colin Powell >as the basis for a possible war. Who is responsible for such an >incredible failure of judgment? > >"The Channel 4 report clearly suggests that the intelligence has been >embroidered from other sources. Who is the author and who gave their >approval? > >"We need a clear assurance that the Government's published information >is based on the best available sources and is not just spin." > >Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell added: >"This is the intelligence equivalent of being caught stealing the >spoons. The dossier may not amount to much but this is a considerable >embarrassment for a Government trying still to make a case for war." > >Mr Al-Marashi told the BBC2 Newsnight programme: "In my opinion, the >UK document overall is accurate even though there are a few minor >cosmetic changes. > >"The only inaccuracies in the UK document were that they maybe >inflated some of the numbers of these intelligence agencies," he said. > >"This appears to be obsolete academic analysis dressed up as the best >MI6 and our other international partners can produce on Saddam. > >"The word 'scandalous' is, I think, greatly overused in our political >life but it certainly applies to this. > >"Clearly, one has to ask about the veracity of other documents and >other material the Government has produced. > >"One has to ask who in Government knew what the original source >materials were and whether some officials in Downing Street were led >to believe by other officials that they were actually being presented >with official material. > >"We've heard various remarks about MI6 being reluctant to take part in >Government propaganda. One has to ask whether in fact the intelligence >services refused to provide this sort of material or the material they >produced didn't make the Government's case and there was a last minute >scurrying to produce something else." > >Dr Rangwala, lecturer in politics at Cambridge University, told the >programme: "Many of the words and phrases I recalled from another >context, so I searched around the articles I had read about Iraq's >military and security organisations and realised that large sections >of the Government's dossier were actually copied. > >"The British Government's dossier is 19 pages long and most of pages 6 >to 16 are copied directly from that document word for word, even the >grammatical errors and typographical mistakes." > >The article, from the Middle East Review of International Affairs, was >written by Ibrahim al-Marashi based on information obtained at the >time of the first Gulf War. > >Dr Rangwala said: "The information he was using is 12 years old and he >acknowledges this in his article. The British Government, when it >transplants that information into its own dossier, does not make that >acknowledgement. > >"So it is presented as current information about Iraq, when really the >information it is using is 12 years old." > >Shadow defence secretary Bernard Jenkin said: "Having seen the Channel >4 News report, we are deeply concerned about the issues raised and we >are making immediate enquiries with ministers to clarify the >situation." > >Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesman Menzies Campbell added: >"This is the intelligence equivalent of being caught stealing the >spoons. The dossier may not amount to much but this is a considerable >embarrassment for a Government trying still to make a case for war." > >Mr Jenkin added: "The Government's reaction to the Channel 4 News >report utterly fails to explain, deny or excuse the allegations made >in the programme. > >"This document has been cited by the Prime Minister and Colin Powell >as the basis for a possible war. Who is responsible for such an >incredible failure of judgment? > >"The Channel 4 report clearly suggests that the intelligence has been >embroidered from other sources. Who is the author and who gave their >approval? > >"We need a clear assurance that the Government's published information >is based on the best available sources and is not just spin." > >Mr Al-Marashi told the BBC2 Newsnight programme: "In my opinion, the >UK document overall is accurate even though there are a few minor >cosmetic changes. > >"The only inaccuracies in the UK document were that they maybe >inflated some of the numbers of these intelligence agencies. > >"Being an academic paper, I tried to soften the language. For example, >in one of my documents, I said that they support organisations in what >Iraq considers hostile regimes, whereas the UK document refers to it >as 'supporting terrorist organisations in hostile regimes'. > >"The primary documents I used for this article are a collection of two >sets of documents, one taken from Kurdish rebels in the north of Iraq >- around four million documents - as well as 300,000 documents left by >Iraqi security services in Kuwait. > >"After that, I have been following events in the Iraqi security >services for the last 10 years." > >Copyright 2003 The Press Association Limited > > >====================================================================== > >The Guardian (London) >7 February 2003, p. 5 > >UK dossier lifted evidence >By Brian Whitaker > >Large parts of the British government's latest dossier on Iraq - which >allegedly draws on "intelligence material" - were plagiarised from >published academic articles, it emerged yesterday. > >The dossier, entitled Iraq - its infrastructure of concealment, >deception and intimidation, won high praise from the US secretary of >state, Colin Powell, in his speech to the UN security council on >Wednesday. > >"I would call my colleagues' attention to the fine paper that the >United Kingdom distributed . . . which describes in exquisite detail >Iraqi deception activities," Mr Powell said. The first sentence of the >document - issued by Downing Street - states, somewhat cryptically, >that it "draws upon a number of sources, including intelligence >material". > >But Glen Rangwala, a lecturer in politics at Cambridge University, was >not impressed. "I found it quite startling when I realised that I'd >read most of it before," he said yesterday. > >Four of the report's 19 pages appear to have been copied, with only >minor editing and a few insertions, from the internet version of an >article by Ibrahim al-Marashi that appeared in the Middle East Review >of International Affairs last September. > >The content of six more pages relies heavily on articles by Sean Boyne >and Ken Gause that appeared in Jane's Intelligence Review in 1997 and >last November. None of these sources is acknowledged. > >The document, as posted on Downing Street's website at the end of >January, also accidentally named four Whitehall officials who had >worked on it: P Hamill, J Pratt, A Blackshaw and M Khan. It was >reposted on February 3 with the first three names deleted. > >"Apart from passing this off as the work of its intelligence >services," Dr Rangwala said, "it indicates that the UK really does not >have any independent sources of information on Iraq's internal >policies. It just draws upon publicly available data." > >Evidence of an electronic cut-and-paste operation by Whitehall >officials can be found in the way the dossier preserves quirks from >its original sources. One sentence in Dr Marashi's article includes a >misplaced comma in referring to Iraq's head of military intelligence >during the 1991 Gulf war. The same sentence in Downing Street's report >contains the same misplaced comma. > >A Downing Street spokesman declined to say why the report's public >sources had not been acknowledged. "We said that it draws on a number >of sources, including intelligence. It speaks for itself." > >Dr Marashi, a research associate at the Centre for Nonproliferation >Studies in Monterey, California, said no one had contacted him before >lifting the material. > >Copyright 2003 Guardian Newspapers Limited > >_______________________________________________ >Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. >To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss >To contact the list manager, email email@example.com >All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk -- Cathy Aitchison _______________________________________________ Sent via the discussion list of the Campaign Against Sanctions on Iraq. To unsubscribe, visit http://lists.casi.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/casi-discuss To contact the list manager, email firstname.lastname@example.org All postings are archived on CASI's website: http://www.casi.org.uk