Panorama, Osama Bin Laden and warnings of 9/11
I was in the Panorama office at the Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ on 9/11 when news began filtering through of a plane that had apparently flown into one of the Twin Towers in New York City.
I went straight into my bosses office and said 'I bet that Osama Bin Laden is behind this'.
Since 1998 when I first made a film for Panorama about al-Qaeda's attacks on the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania I had expected them to try and pull off a spectacular attack - very probably one on the US mainland.
In that 1998 film Death to America we had detailed al-Qaeda's links to an earlier attempt to blow up the World Trade Centre in 1993 and I had found hints of a plot in the Philippines involving light aircraft and a pilot bent on a suicide mission.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit µώµώ°δΜύ°Β±π²ϊ·ΙΎ±²υ±π for full instructions. If you're reading via RSS, you'll need to visit the blog to access this content.
I never dreamed on 9/11 as we worked through the night to prepare a that I would go on to make half a dozen major investigations for Panorama on al-Qaeda - the and as well as the abortive just some of them.
I was to visit Afghanistan and many times as the repercussions of 9/11 spread across the globe with disastrous consequences for many hundreds of thousands of people.
Comment number 1.
At 11th Sep 2009, TGR Worzel wrote:Yes, I remember that particular episode of Panorama quite clearly. It made an impression on me at the time, in 1998, but I still couldn't believe what I was seeing on 11th September 2001...
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 20th Aug 2010, aglr wrote:Hi,
I just watched Death in Med episode and I have to say that I am a bit disappointed with Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ. I am not going to say that it was one sided or anything. I am disappointed because Jane Corbin, who is considered an expert on middle east lacked some really important facts of international law and particularly international maritime law while preparing this episode.
In today's world media is the most effective way of convincing the unquestioning crowds with what you want to present. Creating a documentary about the Mavi MArmara incident and getting views from both parties of course looks like an impartial thing to do. However it takes the focus point from "was it legal (according to international law) to intercept the ship?" to "were israel right doing so?" I have to clarify what I mean by the legality of the incident. Here are a few facts;
For a country to intercept a flag ship on international waters, first they have to have solid evidence that people on that ship are either terrorists or smugglers or some perpetuators of a serious crime. And to intercept they have to get a permission from both UN and the flag country which is of course in this case, Turkey. Alternatively they can intercept a ship if there is a naval blockade in the area. However this blockade must be a legal one. These criteria haven't been met. Secondly (as an answer to the Israeli arguement which is that they have right to intercept as there is a naval blockade) according to Naval Blockade agreement If the population living under blockade is starving or devoid of some basic supplements the blockade becomes illegal which is the case in Isreal. In addition the blockade must be internationally declared and have considerable recognition which in my opinion is anoother reason for the blockade to be illegal. If you want further evidence here is a passage from the legal document that states all these facts
"102. The declaration or establishment of a blockade is prohibited if:
(a) it has the sole purpose of starving the civilian population or denying it other objects essential for its survival; or
(b) the damage to the civilian population is, or may be expected to be, excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the blockade.
103. If the civilian population of the blockaded territory is inadequately provided with food and other objects essential for its survival, the blockading party must provide for free passage of such foodstuffs and other essential supplies, subject to:
(a) the right to prescribe the technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted; and
(b) the condition that the distribution of such supplies shall be made under the local supervision of a Protecting Power or a humanitarian organization which offers guarantees of impartiality, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross.
104. The blockading belligerent shall allow the passage of medical supplies for the civilian population or for the wounded and sick members of armed forces, subject to the right to prescribe technical arrangements, including search, under which such passage is permitted."
Basing on an internationally recognized and approved legal document I strongly believe that the blockade on Gaza is illegal which is inevitably the reason why the interception on the ships were illegal too.
I am a Turkish citizen living in London. I am also an atheist. I never like religious charity organizarions or religious organizations of any kind. This includes IHH. However, just because one doesn't like religiouns or a particualr religion and the members of it, we can never justify them dying in the way they did. Everyone has a right to live wheter they dislike Israel or not. Mavi Marmara incident is fundamentally an issue of freedoms. If a group of people are trying to make a political statement they should be allowed to do so.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)