6 February

Rachel Reid



Yesterday The Times carried an article concerning, and with a glamourised picture of, Rachel Reid. Under the heading "Colonel arrested in Afghanistan under the Official Secrets Act is flown home" and the sub-heading "Army man 'leaked classified information to human rights campaigner'" the article (by Tom Coghlan in Kabul and Sean O Neill) commenced "A senior British army officer arrested in Afghanistan over the leaking of details of civilian deaths in military operations returned to Britain yesterday on a military flight. Lieutenant-Colonel Owen McNally was detained under the Official Secrets Act after allegedly passing classified statistics to a human rights campaigner." It continued "The information is alleged to have informed a report written by Rachel Reid, 34, a former BBC radio reporter who is a researcher on Afghanistan for Human Rights Watch, the US based NGO. According to reports, the Colonel began passing secrets after the two became 'close'" A little later on the report quotes "A Nato source" as stating "Nobody who works closely with him (McNally) believes there was a relationship between them" (that is repeated in bold later in the article). It continues "Last September Ms Reid was the author of a report into civilian deaths that detailed killings by Western forces and the Taliban. It claimed that civilian deaths as a result of Nato action tripled between 2006 and 2007. The 43-page report sourced 'the most conservative figures available'" A little further on the article says "American military officials were reported to be 'seething' over the leaks." It then states that the Ministry of Defence has referred the allegations to Scotland Yard which has assigned Counter Terrorism Command to investigate but the Colonel had not been arrested and no formal investigation had been launched. Towards the end the article states that the case follows the prosecution of Corporal Daniel James found guilty for spying for Iran last year and jailed for 10 years. Apparantly similar reports appeared in the Sun and Daily Mail.



Today the Guardian features on its front page an article by Rachel Reid herself and the same picture that had appeared in The Times with the caption "Living in Afghanistan, I had expected better of my own government". In her article Rachel describes the report as a "vicious slur". She explains that, "Whatever the MoD has whispered into the ear of the Sun", she met Colonel McNally only twice in a professional capacity at the Nato military HQ in Kabul to talk about civilian casualties from US and Nato air strikes.Rachel continues "If the ministry had been seriously concerned that one of their officers was leaking information, why leak it to the media? Why was my name released to the media by the MoD with a (nudge, nudge, wink, wink) libel that our relationship was 'close'. They would know exactly what impression they were creating and presumably decided that my reputation was expendable in order to ensure coverage of their 'story'." She then continues "Why did journalists from the Sun, the Times and the Mail write this as a story focussing on the MoD's entirely bogus suggestion that I had some kind of 'relationship' with McNally? Why is it that my photograph was published? Why have journalists not been asking questions about why the MoD has been encouraging them to publish a vicious false slur about me in order to stop me from doing my job for Human Rights Watch in asking for information from the Nato official in charge of monitoring civilian casualties?..... I expect better from my own government and from the British media that I used to be part of. I am proud of the work I do in Afghanistean. I care deeply about civilian casualties, as should the MoD. That is why they should be focusing their energies on, not impugning the reputation of a human rights worker or charging one of their officers for trying to explain to me the precautions that international military forces were taking to avoid killing Afghans"



Rachel goes on to describe her dealings with Afghans. "What they want me to hear first are their stories about the women and children bombed at a wedding party, the Qu'ran that was ripped up by foreign soldiers in a night raid, or the family shot dead in their car because they didn't understand orders in English to stop at a checkpoint. They are outraged and bewildered by the killings, in particular the air strikes. By UN estimates, more than 500 civilians were killed in air strikes in Afghanistan last year. The insurgents may have killed more than 1,000 but Afghans expect little from the Taliban" Rachel then describes the worst civilian casualty incident in Azizabad in Shindand, the August 2008 'kill/capture' operation in which at least 76 civilians (59 children) were killed according to the Afghan Human Rights Commission, the UN putting the toll at above 90, and in particular the 5-year old girl Kubra who was killed. "The US military, whose forces carried out the air strike, was cold and dismissive about the reports of civilian dead. Initially they denied any casualties, later admitting 5 to 7 civilian deaths. It was only weeks later, after video evidence emerged that they were forced to investigate again and revised the civilian death toll up to 33. Whatever the final figure, the death toll from this incident was shocking. The subsequent military denials compounded the fury that Afghans already felt about these deaths. "



Rachel ends her article "If the military would hold its people to account for these terrible mistakes then human rights organisations would leave them alone. In the meantime they should remember that this has nothing to do with individuals like me, and everything to do with little girls like Kubra".



Coincidently today the Guardian carries the twice-weekly column by Simon Jenkins which today is headed "The poison of Guantanamo still courses through ministerial veins" with a side flagging: "The disregard for law and liberty threatens to taint our state indefinitely. A full, open inquiry could lift it out of this mess." Trenchantly, Jenkins speaks of the "hysterical overreaction" to 9/11 by the US and Britain which still infects us, with David Miliband being "induced by forces of darkness to give the feeblest excuse for stopping the high court from disclosing details of the alleged torture of a British resident entombed for 4 years in Guantanamo Bay" (a reference to the Binyan Mohamed case decision earlier this week) A further example of the Government invoking so-called "national security" as a justification for its policies, just as it did over the abandonment of the BAe Systems Saudi corruption prosecution.



The juxtaposition of Rachel's article and Simon Jenkins' in today's Guardian was too good an opportunity to miss, so I penned another letter to the paper (and copied it to Rachel). It will probably get short shrift from the paper, but never mind, it expresses my feelings. Here it is:

Dear Sir

The Guardian has performed a public service in publishing Rachel Reid's account of the way she has been treated by the MoD. The manner in which that Government department has colluded with the more unscrupulous parts of the media in defaming her and its victimisation of Colonel McNally because of their parts in exposing atrocities in the conduct of the war in Afghanistan, is yet further testimony of what Simon Jenkins so appositely describes as the still ongoing "hysterical overreaction" to 9/11 practised by the American and British Governments and which so abundantly justify his demand for a full open inquiry.