The U.S. military released a report last week clearing American troops in the March gunfire incident that injured Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and killed Nicola Calipari, an Italian intelligence agent, as they were driving to the Baghdad airport. Italian reaction has been outraged, and the Italian government is expected to issue a report on Monday contradicting many of the U.S. findings.
But here's a question: do you think the Italian computer whizzes will be any more competent than their American counterparts when they release their report? The U.S. report is full of redactions, as you can see in the picture above, but once again an American agency has used the searchable PDF format to distribute a report, and all you have to do is save the report as a text file in order to recover all the redacted parts.
A Greek medical student at Bologna University who was surfing the web early on Sunday found that with two simple clicks of his computer mouse he could restore censored portions of the report.
He passed the details to Italian newspapers which immediately put out the full text on their own websites.
The missing text contains the names and ranks of all of the American military personnel involved in the killing of Nicola Calipari, the Italian agent who was given a state funeral and awarded Italy's highest medal of valour.
It also reveals the rules of engagement in operation at the military checkpoint near Baghdad airport which have been contested by the Italian authorities.
The censored sections include recommendations that the American military modify their checkpoint procedures to give better and clearer warning signs to approaching vehicles.
The official Italian report on the incident expected to be published this week will accuse the American military of tampering with evidence at the scene of the shooting.
The Americans invited two Italians to join in their inquiry, but the Italian representatives protested at what they claimed was lack of objectivity in presenting the evidence and returned to Rome.
The report is really sad reading. The US soldiers were clearly devastated when they realized what they'd done (and the name of the US soldier who shot at the car sounded Italian American), and the Carabinieri agent/driver who had been on the phone throughout with Italian officials alerting them to the progress of their travel to Bagdhad airport was a wreck. What a tragic mess. Bush should have apologized from the beginning, as opposed to niggling over who's fault it was leading to this absurd stand off between the US and Italians. US troops killed the agent of an allied agent rescuing their citizen who had been held hostage by terrorist kidnappers. Say you're sorry, and move on.
The Italians have some questions (from Corriere della Sera)
The decision on the part of the US to publish its final report on the death of Nicola Calipari without awaiting the conclusions of the Italian members of the Joint US-Italian commission is the latest slap in the face to Italy from the United States. This example, as if another were needed, confirms that the Italian members were permitted no input--not even into the timing of the release. Italy will respond tomorrow afternoon with its own report which will be handed to the government and forwarded to magistrates investigating the shooting. While Premier Silvio Berlusconi is back to claiming that no ransom was paid and repeating "our unquestionable friendship with the United States", the Italian team is rushing to complete a report contesting point by point the US findings to which video files and photographs of the behavior of US troops while manning checkpoints will be attached. Among the video attachments is a file showing what is considered to be a typical "dirty trick"--a patrol laughing and joking about the corpse of an Iraqi motorist whom they shot in cold blood behind the wheel of his van.
ACCUSATIONS LEVELED AT THE USA. In its conclusions, signed by Ambassador Cesare Ragaglini and General Pierluigi Campregher, the Italian team faults the Americans for refusing a dynamic reconstruction of events. The Italians specifically mention "tampering at the scene of the incident" and of the Toyota Corolla, a key piece evidence, in which the Italian intelligence officers and Guiliana were traveling. At the end of its investigation, the Italians even proposed concluding the report by saying it was impossible to attribute responsibility. The US military rejected this compromise, saying it would completely exonerate the patrol to close any loophole permiting further legal action on the part of the Italian judiciary.
THE "BLOCKING" POSITION. This arrangement differentiates the type of checkpoint. This type of arrangement, underscores the Italian findings, is not subject to any rules because it is generally employed "on the battlefield" and in fact does not incorporate signposting and barbed wire. The Italians particularly fault the US decision of placing "it at the end of an elbow curve." The report then concentrates on the crime scene investigation carried out together with US officials. "The scene of the incident"--they write--"was altered and the soldiers were unable to indicate their positions at the time of the shooting. They add that the alteration prevented the investigating team from determining the source of weapons fire. Not only that: but according to the Italian team, "between the illumination of the spotlight and the warning shots far more than the three seconds alloted by the patrol would have been required for the driver to come to a complete stop".
THE HIDDEN NAMES. In the US version of the report, 12 names were blacked out in the interests of military secrecy. Italy believes in confidentiality, but in the report the Americans wrote that it was not possible to determine which servicemen were part of the patrol on 4 March. "The soldier who fired", says the USA, "was Hispanic." But the Italian delegation suspected that "at least three soldiers opened fire." "Testimony," says the Italian team, "was contradictory and in some cases totally unreliable."
COMMUNICATIONS. In the report to be handed to the Italian government tomorrow, the CIA station chief was informed of the operation and in the early afternoon he was given the details of the rental car. Also, "US Command was informed 25 minutes before the shooting that the hostage [Mrs. Sgrena] was released." In any case, the Italians underscore that confidentiality is absolutely routine, even between allies, in such a mission. The statements of the SISMI station chief in Baghdad affirm that he was on the phone with Calipari when the shooting occurred. "It was the [SISMI Station Chief] who asked that all [US-manned] checkpoints be informed and was told that "there were not any checkpoints". Shortly later, on the request of the [SISMI Station Chief], a US military officer contacted the patrol and this demonstrates that it would have been possible to warn the soldiers that the automobile with the released hostage on board was on the road leading to the airport.
I really hate the way that Americans often seem to lose their sanity the minute the word "communist" is mentioned, since it seems like such a knee jerk reflex, especially since the cold war ended around 15 years ago. However, I think that Sgrena's attitude toward the US was probably not the most favourable, as I can't imagine a European communist paper employing a giddy yay america type person. While communist papers and parties in Europe are dinosaurs, as not many are interested in them, I think that the general view of the US in Europe has nothing to do with being communist or not.
I simply see European attitudes as being one's of suspicion and disbelief at the rhetoric and actions of the current US government.
However, a lot of Europeans are just as supicious of their own governments as these are just as opaque in the way they do things.
The US government has for a long time, and this adiminstration in particular, classified things reflexively, whether secrecy was actually required or not.
In many ways it'll be scarier if the redactions show nothing of interest at all: not protecting anybody's privacy or any actual secrets. (A quick scan suggests exactly that.) It leaves open the question, "Why is the government keeping that information secret? Why is the government keeping so much information secret?"
There are many things that people would like to know to keep an eye on their government. Not all of that information should be released, for national security reasons, but it's always been the government who makes that decision. This lack of a check on the power of government makes people increasingly nervous as crimes (e.g. Abu Ghraib) are discovered anyway.
Creationism in Schools at Fault for Dwindling Science Skills
According to a 2004 article from The New York Times, "The United States has started to lose its worldwide dominance in critical areas of science and innovation."
Our Republican-dominated government hasn't exactly leapt into action. Although, to be fair, the issue of science has never been a high priority for them. They're kept pretty busy running up record deficits, undermining church/state separation, engaging in pre-emptive wars and enriching the wealthy at the expense of the poor. The title of a February 2004 CNN article, "Scientists feel stifled by Bush administration," nicely captures President Bush's feelings for science.
Numerous factors contribute to our slipping science and technology leadership. Most would undoubtedly agree that a robust science education is crucially important for our children to be internationally competitive. Such an education, despite the protestations of theocrats, requires comprehensive instruction in the central, unifying concept of modern biology: evolution. As the eminent geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky observed, "Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution."
The gradual and insidious imposition of religious beliefs (creationism) in public science classes represents more than a violation of church/state separation; it's a waste of valuable time. As the National Academy of Sciences bluntly put it: "Creationism, intelligent design and other claims of supernatural intervention in the origin of life or of species are not science."
Each creationist victory promises increasing numbers of students who are poorly informed about evolutionary theory and hostile toward the topic. In fact, these students might be indoctrinated with serious misconceptions about evolution.
With this problem in mind, I have a suggestion for how introductory evolutionary theory might be more effectively taught. Educators could exploit creationist-spawned misinformation by using commonly held misconceptions of evolutionary theory as a springboard to the introduction of central concepts.
Misconception #1: "Evolution is random, and randomness can't produce complexity."
Like many creationist falsehoods, this one contains a kernel of truth. Chance does, indeed, play a role in the evolutionary process; mutation is a random change in a gene or chromosome. However, the process of natural selection is decidedly nonrandom. Put simply, natural selection acts like a filter on genetic variations within a population, weeding out deleterious genetic changes, while favoring mutations that tend to improve reproductive fitness. Beneficial mutations (largely defined by environmental conditions) increase in frequency within a gene pool. Fast-evolving antibiotic resistant bacteria provide a great example. Evolution is not random.
Misconception #2: "Evolution is just a theory."
This misunderstanding provides a superb opportunity to remind students what science is, what a scientific theory is and how science differs from other ways of knowing. Although in the common vernacular the word "theory" denotes a rudimentary idea or guess, a scientific theory is far more than that. Scientific theories are well-substantiated explanations of natural phenomena. Evolutionary theory is accepted as fact by an overwhelming majority of scientists all over the world. In contrast, creationism represents a mere unsubstantiated belief or guess.
Misconception #3: "There are gaps in the fossil record, and transitional fossils don't exist."
Of course there are gaps in the fossil record - fossilization is a rare occurrence. However, despite this limitation, numerous and superb examples of transitional fossils have been found. This common fallacy that evolution is poorly supported offers an excellent opportunity to discuss examples of transitional forms and the vast corroborating evidence for evolution drawn from various disciplines. A recent article in Scientific American put it well: "We know evolution happened � because of the convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, paleontology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics and many more."
Numerous additional misconceptions about evolution exist, including one of my favorites, "If we came from monkeys, then why are there still monkeys?" "Teaching to the misconception" provides an effective means of introducing fundamental principles of both evolution and the scientific method, while simultaneously undermining the well-funded creationist misinformation campaign. It's all good.
Call it creationism, or call it intelligent design, it has no basis in the scientific method, and thus it is not science, and thus it doesn't belong in science class. It is analogous to require a discussion of Darwinism in Sunday School or comparative religion--an interesting concept, but it has nothing to do with doctrine or chapter and verse. Anyone who does not grasp that there is a bright line dividing these concepts has not been taught science adequately.It may be useful for teachers to discuss creationism, ID or criticisms of Darwinism in class, but there certainly should be no mandate for it. Science rejects strict theism out of hand, just as theism rejects strict empiricism out of hand. Only one group is forcing children to have their educations muddled and diluted in the name of pushing dogma.
Remember the Kennewick Man some years ago and all the controversy that it generated, partly because it contradicted some of the cherished beliefs of local Native American tribes? Science is not PC--it often offends someone. It might be Christian fundamentalits some day, it might be Native Americans another, or it could be industrialists one day, and environmentalists another. But, if we are to be committed to science, we can't be partisan about its implications.
The U.S. military 
According to a 2004 article from The New York Times, "The United States has started to lose its worldwide dominance in critical areas of science and innovation."
