April 17, 2004
OH DONNA
To say the least, the kidnapping of Donna Mulhearn is a curious affair. Let’s work through it ...
Early reports gave this account (based on an email sent by Mulhearn) of Mulhearn’s capture, along with three other foreign aid workers:
As they were leaving [Fallujah], the workers' car became caught in crossfire between the militia and US forces.
Ms Mulhearn said she tried to show her Australian passport at a US checkpoint, in a bid for safe passage.
But the four were captured by the militia, who were armed with a dozen guns and rocket-propelled grenades.
Events here are obviously compressed; we don’t know how much time elapsed between the group’s appearance at the US checkpoint and their subsequent capture. Presumably the gap was considerable, because in this radio interview Mulhearn doesn’t mention any crossfire or checkpoints (incidentally, that shootout occured during a supposed ceasefire -- which does’t mean it didn’t happen, Fallujah being Fallujah). In any case, the militia apparently shooting it out with US forces was no longer in combat mode by the time they approached Mulhearn’s vehicle:
We saw them walking towards us and we were just hoping that they were inquiring after who we were in a friendly manner and if they could help us. But when they got out a rocket propelled grenade and aimed it towards our car and when they all surrounded the car with large weapons and guns, then we knew that it wasn't a friendly haul, and that they in fact didn't know who we were, they didn't know our driver, and the communication was not good.
Communication obviously improved. According to this piece, during the group’s interrogation “we had an Iraqi translator with us”:
They interrogated us for quite a while at the beginning to try and figure out why we were in Fallujah, they were suspicious that we could have been spies. So it was only after they searched our belongings and they talked to us for quite a while that we were able to convince them about our mission and why we were in Fallujah.
So I think under other circumstances, they may have taken the opportunity to use us as hostages to place pressure on the Australian Government, but when they realised that we were in fact there to help the people of Fallujah, and I guess, had common ground with them, that they understood the situation we were in, and they treated us with respect after that.
Except for the tying-up. SBS reported that Mulhearn was bound; but Mulhearn told the SMH that any binding was limited to “the guys”:
They tied the guys' hands behind their backs and confiscated our gear. In separate interrogations, they demanded to know who we were; they wanted to know if we were spies.
Back to Mulhearn’s radio interview:
My interrogator said to me, asked me questions like, 'why does your Prime Minister want to keep… to send soldiers to Iraq from Australia? Why are Australians involved in a war in Iraq? What do Australians think about Iraqis?' And they were quite interested in the position of Australia in the war. So I was very much on my toes in having to point out to him my views, as opposed to the views of the Australian Government.
I don’t buy this part of Mulhearn’s story at all. Her interrogator knew that John Howard was Australia’s Prime Minister? In her SMH communication, Mulhearn claimed she was asked “why Australia wants to hurt Iraqi people”; Mulhearn and her friends were apparently abducted by Indymedia.iraq.com. And what about those British and American comrades? They haven’t been mentioned, or even named, in any British or American media. You’d expect at least some attention for these freed hostages. Thus far, however ... nothing. And then there’s this Mulhearn claim:
I realised quickly that my prime minister, John Howard, had placed me in great danger by making inflammatory comments about the war just a few days ago.
What comments, specifically? Mulhearn doesn’t say. More from her radio interview, linked above:
The American fellow of course was very worried throughout the whole ordeal, and he actually told the captors that he was from Mexico, and he had ID, media ID, but he managed to keep his passport hidden from them, so that they couldn't see that he was American. He was very worried of what might have happened to him if they'd learnt that he was American.
The hostage-takers held these people for 20 hours or so -- yet they couldn’t locate this fellow’s passport, despite an obvious interest in their hostages’ origins? Where was he hiding it? Weirdest of all, one of Mulhearn’s old Labor associates in Newcastle predicted these events two days before they were reported:
Newcastle Trades Hall councillor Gary Kennedy said it appeared Ms Mulhearn was basically stuck in [Fallujah] for the duration of hostilities.
"The Iraqis were very protective of Donna while she was a human shield and I would hope she would be tagged as 'untouchable' to would-be kidnappers.
"She is not a contract worker earning lucrative pay - she is a relief worker assisting the young people of Iraq and she is not paid a lot money," Mr Kennedy said.
"The foreign nationals being targeted are mainly contract workers who earn a great deal of money.”
Mr Kennedy was speaking after the Department of foreign Affairs and Trade warned Australians were at significant risk of being kidnapped or being targets for terrorist bombings.
What did Kennedy know about Mulhearn’s kidnapping, and when did he know it?
UPDATE. Associated Press is cautious:
Mulhearn's claims could not immediately be verified.
And Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer is dubious:
She hasn't to the best of my knowledge contacted our embassy in Baghdad and she's gone straight out and contacted the media, not contacted the embassy, which is uncharacteristic of people's behaviour in these circumstances. But I have nothing more to go on than her word and I can't repudiate what she said. What she said I assume to be true, unless proven otherwise.
UPDATE II. Officials want to have a quiet chat:
Posted by Tim Blair at April 17, 2004 02:54 AMA spokeswoman for the Department of Foreign Affairs said yesterday that Ms Mulhearn had not tried to contact the consulate with details of her ordeal.
Department officials are yet to verify Ms Mulhearn's story and will try to obtain a full briefing from her today.
I don’t buy this part of Mulhearn’s story at all. Her interrogator knew that John Howard was Australia’s Prime Minister?
I find it plausible. I heard on radio that some in Iraq even have heard about the Greens heckling Bush during his visit here.
Posted by: Andjam at April 17, 2004 at 03:02 AMI wonder what amount of pay constitutes a great deal of money? If you just happen to earn a dollar or two above the noble/slime scale you seem to be in jeopardy of losing your life.
Posted by: JimC at April 17, 2004 at 03:12 AMJimC - That's what I keep asking the lefties about the "Mercenary war-profiteers". They always seem to tie it to an argument about military pay, and while I agree that our soldiers should be paid more, they never answer the question: at what salary do our soldiers become mercenaries to you?
Posted by: Matt Moore at April 17, 2004 at 03:35 AM"The Iraqis were very protective of Donna while she was a human shield and I would hope she would be tagged as 'untouchable' to would-be kidnappers."
She was one of the 'human shields'?
Doesn't that explain a lot right there?
...they realised that we were in fact there to help the people of Fallujah, and I guess, had common ground with them...
The coalition forces are there to help the people of Fallujah. Mulhearn's common ground is with the thugs and murderers who would deny the people of Iraq democratic government.
Belmont Club had a post the other day about the "strategic" use of kidnappings - Wretchard's piece was about kidnapping journalists only to have them turn out to be "interventions" of a sort.
You can see it here. Note that the 3rd kidnapping event, of a Canadian journalist, sounds VERY similar to Mulhearn's experience, even if she made it all up.
Oh, wait - journalists never make anything up, do they?
Posted by: Steve in Houston at April 17, 2004 at 04:22 AMLawrence has her pegged but how obtuse can she be? She's making up a story about being kidnapped while functioning as a NGO loony toon. Is she trying to argue the kidnappers are good but Howard (who as far as I know has never kidnapped her)is bad? I hope she'll forgive me if I remain unconvinced.
As the kidnappers are the fellow travelers of the murderers who put a bullet through the Italian Fabrizio Quattrocchi's head, how depraved would that make her? (As far as I know Howard hasn't shot any Italians either)
When given a choice between viscious murdering kidnappers and the Australian Prime Minister I know which I whould chose but if Donna Mulhearn prefers the former, I can't understand why she left them and the poor people of Falluja. Solidarity among repressed peoples and all that don't you know?
Posted by: Hudson at April 17, 2004 at 05:22 AMSmells like a publicity stunt. John Howard should've dealt with the terrorists. He could've come away with a goat. Isn't that the going price for whingin' scrubbers?
Posted by: AuSkeptic at April 17, 2004 at 05:41 AMBah! This delusional bint willingly joins the Fallujah circle jerk, but it's John Howard who has put her in danger!
Posted by: debbie at April 17, 2004 at 05:49 AMAt least you all are not calling for her death anymore! As for Iraqi's knowing who is John Howard, I sometimes watch Mosaic which translates the Arab satellite TV broadcasts into english. The Arab stations cover the news from around the world, including Australian news.
Posted by: deckard at April 17, 2004 at 06:11 AM" unless proven otherwise."
You just know he wanted to say "UNTIL proven otherwise"...
Posted by: Todd S at April 17, 2004 at 06:38 AMI saw her on TV yesterday. What a self-righteous annoying braggard. And her "captors" actually put up with her for 20 hours before throwing her back? They are tougher than I'd thought!
Posted by: Endgame at April 17, 2004 at 06:41 AM"but when they realised that we were in fact there to help the people of Fallujah, and I guess, had common ground with them, that they understood the situation we were in, and they treated us with respect after that."
This sounds to me like an admission on the part of our heroine thats she was in Fallujah to give succour & assistance to the enemy. She has 'common ground' with a force that is in combat with the coalition. Oz is part of the coalition. Sounds like treason. She could be more worthy of prosecution than Hicks. And we wouldn't have to make up a new law to prosecute the cow.
Posted by: Travis at April 17, 2004 at 07:26 AM...."and they treated us with respect after that."
That a pack of thugs and murderers treated her with respect says it all.
I'd treat scum like these with all the respect they deserve--half an ounce of lead travelling at 2600fps between the ears.
So this dimwit blames John Howard because she was stupid enough to put herself in a war zone? Since she's blaming Howard instead of taking responsibility for her own asininity, I'm assuming she's Arab.
Posted by: Helen at April 17, 2004 at 08:01 AMdreckard:
I'd prefer she be a hostage than the the Italian Fabrizio Quattrocchi, or the US soldiers curently being held hostage. If she wants to be a human shield, try the other direction for once. Then perhaps we can take her seriously.
Posted by: JeffS at April 17, 2004 at 09:08 AMShe's a liar. It's bloody obvious. I had to go and wipe the bullshit out my ears after I heard that one.
Posted by: murph at April 17, 2004 at 11:13 AMHey, Donna, Tell us the names of your fellow captives. What countries were they from? What organisations did they work for? Did THEY contact their embassies after being kidnapped, tied up and interrogated for 20 hours? You clearly need help. Don't you think they might too?
Posted by: alby at April 17, 2004 at 11:30 AMp.s. And why, pray, would the Fallujans "have taken the opportunity to use us [two Brits, an American and an Australian] as hostages to place pressure on the AUSTRALIAN Government"? Like, don't Britain and the U.S. have slightly higher profiles in the coalition, and a few thousand more troops and reconstruction workers in Iraq? The woman is as reckless with her lying as she wants us to believe John Howard is with her precious personal safety.
Posted by: alby at April 17, 2004 at 11:38 AM"So I think under other circumstances, they may have taken the opportunity to use us as hostages to place pressure on the Australian Government"
Jeez, read this again.She actually wants to be taken hostage. It would seem from this that she goes to Fallujah, hoping to be taken hostage, create some publicity, exit with statements such as "they want the Australian forces to leave"
Sad, a self-appointed spokesperson and publicity hound. I hope the stupid bint gets what she deserves.
Posted by: nic at April 17, 2004 at 12:17 PMMy interrogator said to me, asked me questions like, 'why does your Prime Minister want to keep… to send soldiers to Iraq from Australia? Why are Australians involved in a war in Iraq? What do Australians think about Iraqis?' And they were quite interested in the position of Australia in the war. So I was very much on my toes in having to point out to him my views, as opposed to the views of the Australian Government.
I don’t buy this part of Mulhearn’s story at all. Her interrogator knew that John Howard was Australia’s Prime Minister?
It seems very, very, very unlikely that the Iraqi kidnappers would have any interest at all in Australian politics. But, from that quote above, there's no evidence that the kidnappers knew that John H. was Australia's Prime Minister.
Oh, wait a sec - just checked out the radio interview. This helps clarify it:
She says that as an Australian she received a lot of attention because the militia had heard statements from Prime Minister John Howard reinforcing his commitment to having troops in Iraq.
A small flaw in an otherwise excellent post. Very little about Donna in today's Newcastle Herald, apart from a very critical editorial. I'll have to check out those links to the Maitland Mercury that you provided, Tim.
Mulhearn served as a human shield against freedom and choice. Probably enjoyed her recent alleged captivity.
Was wondering: "human" shield as opposed to another dumb species?
Posted by: c at April 17, 2004 at 12:31 PMI'd like to know which NGO she's supposedly working for when she goes off on her ideological publicity stunts.
20 hours with her? Terrorists deserve to be shot, but not this.
Posted by: Craig Mc at April 17, 2004 at 01:41 PMIf you think her story is a bit fishy now, check out this post at the Belmont Club: it's all about journalists and their near-kidnappings....and how the stories seem to share a common theme.
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_04_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108172305524979009
Interesting coincidences.
Posted by: zonker at April 17, 2004 at 01:50 PMZonker, I'm shocked - shocked - that you are insinuating that journalists fabricate stories. I suppose you believe that they just make up quotes and interviews and descriptions and people out of whole cloth while drinking in a NYC bar, or snorting coke in their apartments. Shame on you. Many of these people have Pulitzers, for God's sake.
Posted by: Dave S. at April 17, 2004 at 04:16 PMYes Louis. She's a blonde. On top of being stupid, she's a fugly scrag.
Posted by: murph at April 17, 2004 at 05:04 PMI wish those silly insurgents tore out that bloody "blonde" hair by it dark roots!
If you ask me she went there to get an Arab husband but she neglected to pack enough peroxide for the trip. Stupid bitch!
Whats that you said? "Faerlie Arrow"?
Cant see a penthouse pictorial in the offing.
Maybe picture's "bag girl' on a really slow week.
[Humming "I Wonder Who's Holding Donna Now" by DeBarge, 1985 ...]
What tipped me off was that suspicious little side-detail about the 13-year-old coke addict interviewed by Jessica Lynch's parents who tied Donna M up in a rubbish bin with a gaggle of ferocious man-eating plastic turkeys.
Posted by: Uncle Milk at April 17, 2004 at 07:31 PMMulhearn lives. Quattrochi dies.
Funny old world.
Posted by: Byron_the_Aussie at April 17, 2004 at 07:58 PMIt seems Donna's no the only one with a "fake" kidnapping.
Hmm. Interesting that one of the alleged hoaxsters was Nahoko Takato. Because Mulhearn says she was a buddy of hers.
Ms Mulhearn was a human shield during the war and returned to Iraq to establish a program for street kids. Working with her was 34-year-old Japanese aid worker Nahoko Takato who was kidnapped with two other Japanese nationals on Thursday. "I was shaken by the news of the three Japanese that were kidnapped. Not least because I knew them," she said. "I felt sick with shock when I saw Nahoko's face. She's the girl. She also used to work with the street kids."
She told the SMH:
"I was worried too about the Japanese. I knew the girl because I worked with her, helping street kids in Baghdad."
If they both worked in Baghdad, are we being asked to believe that they separately, out of the blue, decided to hie themselves to Fallujah, 50 km away, where a battle was raging? And that in both cases they fell prey to kidnappers?
I smell several rats.
20 hours of pinko blather/compassion from this bint! Those terrorists probably ran out and charged a Marine position just to end the pain.
It would be a very strange devolution of the "compassionate" left's pathology (if her's and the Japanese cases were hoaxes). To assuage their twisted little personality disorders and get some attention they start demonizing the very people their propaganda is trying to humanize. Goddamn but just thinking about what kind twisted thinking goes into this makes me want to charge a Marine machine gun nest.
Posted by: Larry at April 17, 2004 at 10:55 PMour Donna says of the Japanese Girl- "She also used to work with the street kids" As in Iraq "street kids". As in a sydney "social welfare worker" taking a concept and transposing it to Iraq. To feel better about herself AND get headlines.
Posted by: max power at April 17, 2004 at 11:42 PMShe has form for bullshitting the media- she was reporting the bombing of Baghdad from a hotel room in Amman. Funny the crew who nabbed her were also free of any sound or video equipment, and she conveniently turned up at her hotel wearing the same human shield t-shirt she wore to a radio interview with the ABC in Newcastle in 2003. If you want to see what this 'tard looks like, click here.
Posted by: Habib at April 18, 2004 at 01:37 AMUgh! What a skank. Maybe she and Peter Singer should date.
Posted by: JeffS at April 18, 2004 at 01:44 AMLord, how many more battles will it take before she becomes a Darwin?
Can we please focus on criticising Mulhearn's demonstrably muddle-headed politics than her appearance, over which she has little control. Ditto for rating her as a sexual receptacle. Standards, people. We're the side who's fighting to preserve civilisation against barbarism.
Posted by: Uncle Milk at April 18, 2004 at 08:43 AMCan we please focus on criticising Mulhearn's demonstrably muddle-headed politics than her appearance, over which she has little control. Ditto for rating her as a sexual receptacle. Standards, people. We're the side who's fighting to preserve civilisation against barbarism.
Posted by: Uncle Milk at April 18, 2004 at 08:44 AM[Blogmire! Squawk! Sqwauuuk! -- this more accurate rendering of the blogparrot's comment courtesy of the Management.]
Posted by: Miranda Divide at April 18, 2004 at 10:39 AMTrue enough, Uncle Milk. My apologies. We shouldn't go down the road of irrelevant comments and snide remarks. After all, we have others to set that standard.
Posted by: JeffS at April 18, 2004 at 11:14 AMWhat do you know, she is also able to regurgitate her beloved Al Jazzera news.
AND I QUOTE:
"But the worst form of attack was the US snipers hiding on rooftops who kill hundreds of civilians as they tried to move about the city." (I suppose that they were so well hidden they used kalashnikovs and looked like militia)
Does this sound like the actions of US troops trying to fight against insurgents? Does it make any sense at ALL in a world with media outlets that would be attacking the US for such actions?
If she can provide me with solid evidence of a sniper campaign against civilians then she has a right to be heard BUT when she comes up with this tripe makes a comment and has no supporting evidence then the rest of her profound experience must also be treated with a grain of salt.
I can see the evidence now: "There is plenty of evidence, the so called "terrorists" are not part of any real millitary therfore they are all civilians, by shooting at these innocent men the US and its zionazi supporters are commiting war crimes, the US must leave Iraq to be ruled by the benevolent tribal cheifs and Grand Ayatolla's and then spend the next 30 years listening to me and my pals tell you that we were right and you were wrong."
I shall just finish this post with one slightly unrelated thing: Iraq only becomes another Vietnam, Lebanon, Somalia if the US leaves the country in a state of chaos. Because there have been relatively few casualties for a conflict of its size I don't think that we are at that stage yet.
Posted by: JBB at April 18, 2004 at 02:41 PM"My interrogator said to me, asked me questions like, 'why does your Prime Minister want to keep… to send soldiers to Iraq from Australia? Why are Australians involved in a war in Iraq? What do Australians think about Iraqis?' And they were quite interested in the position of Australia in the war. So I was very much on my toes in having to point out to him my views, as opposed to the views of the Australian Government."
Ahem, I seriously doubt that an illiterate Baathist goat-humper would have any knowledge whatsoever of the government of Australia or any kind of sophisticated world view to have an informed discussion about Australia's motives for being involved in Iraq. I seriously doubt he could find Australia on a world map. What a load of horseshit.
"I realised quickly that my prime minister, John Howard, had placed me in great danger by making inflammatory comments about the war just a few days ago."
It's fascinating to have empirical, and/or anecdotal for that matter, evidence displaying the actual real-time machinations of a mind of the verifibly stupid. Stupid human panty shield.
What Prime Minister Howard should have said was: If any of you stupid goat-humpers kidnaps Donna Mulhearn we will give you two camels and 10 cartons of cigarettes if you keep her. She makes an excellent human shield gun battles involving you and crazed shiite imams or one hellbent US marine. The Australian government would gladly give references upon request.
Posted by: HarryS at April 18, 2004 at 06:45 PMMulhearn is a liar and a fraud, and that is all there is to it.
Posted by: Alex Robson at April 18, 2004 at 08:21 PM[Squawk! Awwwkkkk... Sqwauuuk! Akakakakak! Caw... bloghead... Arkkk! -- this more accurate rendering of the blogparrot's comment courtesy of the Management.]
Posted by: Miranda Divide at April 19, 2004 at 11:45 AM