Shimon Peres was no peacemaker. I’ll never forget the sight of pouring blood and burning bodies at Qana

by Robert Fisk
The Independent

Peres said the massacre came as a ‘bitter surprise’. It was a lie: the UN had repeatedly told Israel the camp was packed with refugees

When the world heard that Shimon Peres had died, it shouted “Peacemaker!” But when I heard that Peres was dead, I thought of blood and fire and slaughter.

I saw the results: babies torn apart, shrieking refugees, smouldering bodies. It was a place called Qana and most of the 106 bodies ? half of them children ? now lie beneath the UN camp where they were torn to pieces by Israeli shells in 1996. I had been on a UN aid convoy just outside the south Lebanese village. Those shells swished right over our heads and into the refugees packed below us. It lasted for 17 minutes.

Shimon Peres, standing for election as Israel’s prime minister ? a post he inherited when his predecessor Yitzhak Rabin was assassinated ? decided to increase his military credentials before polling day by assaulting Lebanon. The joint Nobel Peace Prize holder used as an excuse the firing of Katyusha rockets over the Lebanese border by the Hezbollah. In fact, their rockets were retaliation for the killing of a small Lebanese boy by a booby-trap bomb they suspected had been left by an Israeli patrol. It mattered not.

A few days later, Israeli troops inside Lebanon came under attack close to Qana and retaliated by opening fire into the village. Their first shells hit a cemetery used by Hezbollah; the rest flew directly into the UN Fijian army camp where hundreds of civilians were sheltering. Peres announced that “we did not know that several hundred people were concentrated in that camp. It came to us as a bitter surprise.”

It was a lie. The Israelis had occupied Qana for years after their 1982 invasion, they had video film of the camp, they were even flying a drone over the camp during the 1996 massacre ? a fact they denied until a UN soldier gave me his video of the drone, frames from which we published in The Independent. The UN had repeatedly told Israel that the camp was packed with refugees.

This was Peres’s contribution to Lebanese peace. He lost the election and probably never thought much more about Qana. But I never forgot it.

When I reached the UN gates, blood was pouring through them in torrents. I could smell it. It washed over our shoes and stuck to them like glue. There were legs and arms, babies without heads, old men’s heads without bodies. A man’s body was hanging in two pieces in a burning tree. What was left of him was on fire.

On the steps of the barracks, a girl sat holding a man with grey hair, her arm round his shoulder, rocking the corpse back and forth in her arms. His eyes were staring at her. She was keening and weeping and crying, over and over: “My father, my father.” If she is still alive ? and there was to be another Qana massacre in the years to come, this time from the Israeli air force ? I doubt if the word “peacemaker” will be crossing her lips.

There was a UN enquiry which stated in its bland way that it did not believe the slaughter was an accident. The UN report was accused of being anti-Semitic. Much later, a brave Israeli magazine published an interview with the artillery soldiers who fired at Qana. An officer had referred to the villagers as “just a bunch of Arabs” (‘arabushim’ in Hebrew). “A few Arabushim die, there is no harm in that,” he was quoted as saying. Peres’s chief of staff was almost equally carefree: “I don’t know any other rules of the game, either for the [Israeli] army or for civilians…”

Peres called his Lebanese invasion “Operation Grapes of Wrath”, which ? if it wasn’t inspired by John Steinbeck ? must have come from the Book of Deuteronomy. “The sword without and terror within,” it says in Chapter 32, “shall destroy both the young man and the virgin, the suckling also with the man of grey hairs.” Could there be a better description of those 17 minutes at Qana?

Yes, of course, Peres changed in later years. They claimed that Ariel Sharon ? whose soldiers watched the massacre at Sabra and Chatila camps in 1982 by their Lebanese Christian allies ? was also a “peacemaker” when he died. At least he didn’t receive the Nobel Prize.

Peres later became an advocate of a “two state solution”, even as the Jewish colonies on Palestinian land ? which he once so fervently supported ? continued to grow.

Now we must call him a “peacemaker”. And count, if you can, how often the word “peace” is used in the Peres obituaries over the next few days. Then count how many times the word Qana appears.


America's Murderous Legacy in Laos

The Real News Network

As Barack Obama becomes the first sitting U.S. president to visit Laos, The Real News brings you an interview with Fred Branfman, the man who first exposed America's secret bombing campaign there.

JAISAL NOOR, TRNN: As Barack Obama, the first sitting U.S. president to visit Laos, we replay a report that looks at the legacy of the US bombing in Laos. We bring you an interview with the man that exposed the massive secret US bombing of Laos.

FRED BRANFMAN: From the Deputy Chief of Mission to Laos testifying to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee--this is an exact quote--when he was asked why they quadrupled the bombing of northern Laos, he said, quote, Well, we had all those planes sitting around and couldn't just let them sit there with nothing to do. unquote.

BARACK OBAMA: For the people of Laos, obviously this war was no secret. Over the course of roughly a decade the United States dropped more bombs on Laos than Germany and Japan during World War II
NOOR: President Obama visited the Cope Center that works with victims of explosives left from the Vietnam War era, providing them with prosthetic limbs and takes part in unexploded ordnance clearing efforts.

OBAMA: 270 million cluster bomblets were dropped on this country. For the people of Laos, the war did not end when the bombs stopped falling. 80 million cluster munitions did not explode.

NOOR: Despite Obama's visit the United States remains one of the handful of countries that continue to manufacture and sell cluster bombs, to its allies such as Saudi Arabia which is currently using them in Yemen.

This report is from 2008.

PETER HERBY: A cluster munition is a canister which is fired from an aircraft or an artillery position which contains many small sub munitions, the small munitions, which then explode. And some of these canisters can contain as many as 650 of these small sub munitions.

REKHA VISWANATHAN: Seventy-eight million unexploded cluster bombs are scattered across Laos to this day, active reminders of the Vietnam War. From 1964 to 1973, the US illegally bombed the country as part of a secret war to disrupt Vietcong supply routes into Vietnam.

HERBY: In Laos, they have been everywhere at the time of the war, in the 1960s and '70s, in villages. And the place was basically uninhabitable because of the degree of weapons contamination and, mainly, cluster munition contamination.

VISWANATHAN: The Laos National Unexploded Ordinance Program, or UXO, says Laos has the distinction of being per capita the most heavily bombed nation in the world.

MENG JUNLAMANEE: I went to the paddy field to work. I started ploughing the field, not knowing there was a bomb there. I ploughed the soil, hit the bomb and it exploded. I didn't know there was a bomb underneath.

JA-LOR: I was pulling the weeds in the paddy field. The hoe hit the bomb, and it exploded.

EDWIN FAIGMANE: People know about the dangers about this UXO, about these cluster munitions on the ground. But it's either they leave it on the ground and they will not be able to farm, or they take the risk just to be able to do some farming and plant rice.

HERBY: Our belief is it will be necessary and it's possible to prohibit perhaps more than 95 percent of existing cluster munitions, which means billions of sub munitions that are sitting in stocks around the world.

NOOR: We also interviewed the man that brought the US bombing of Laos to world attention in 1969, Fred Branfman. He passed away in 2014. This is part of our 2013 interview with Fred.

BRANFMAN: When I interviewed over 1,000 refugees from northern Laos who had had their homes and villages destroyed, tens of thousands of people murdered by U.S. bombing, the one thing I couldn't figure out was why the bombing had so increased after November 1968, when the U.S. had halted bombing over North Vietnam. All the peasants were telling me that the bombing had suddenly become four or five times greater. And I knew there was no military reason for it. It was only a few months later that I read--and this is a very important quote from the Deputy Chief of Mission to Laos testifying to the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee--this is an exact quote--when he was asked why they quadrupled the bombing of northern Laos, he said, quote, Well, we had all those planes sitting around and couldn't just let them sit there with nothing to do. unquote.

Now the situation we have today is very similar. The Bush and Obama administrations have created the first US force of American assassins in our history. They've also created automated machines of war called drones. They have to come up with new missions. For example, President Obama stated as recently as last month that the drone strikes are only aimed at people whose names we know who are plotting to kill us back in America and who we can't get any other way.

This is an absolutely falsehood. The evidence is overwhelming that most of the drone strikes in Pakistan, in Yemen, in Somalia, are what they call signature strikes. These are strikes against people whose names they don't know. They have no idea what their names are. They're drone striking them on the basis of there's a crowd of people who they decide might be hiding a militant.

Now you might ask yourself why did they go from striking named people to striking unnamed people. Why did they go? They've only been able to name 77 senior Al-Qaeda leaders and Taliban leaders by name and they've killed 3-5,000 other people. Well the reason is obvious. They're all these drones sitting around out there. They don't know the names of that many Senior Al-Qaeda leaders. They ran out of targets so they then decided to start killing nameless people that both General McChrystal and the former Director of National Intelligence now tell us is infuriating the Muslim world.

NOOR: From Baltimore, this is Jaisal Noor.


Just Five of the Worst Atrocities Carried Out by the British Empire

The Independent

A new YouGov poll has found the British public are generally proud of the British Empire and its colonial past.

YouGov found 44 per cent were proud of Britain's history of colonialism, with 21 per cent regretting it happened and 23 per cent holding neither view.

The same poll also found 43 per cent believed the British Empire was a good thing, 19 per cent said it was bad and 25 per cent said it was "neither".

At its height in 1922, the British empire governed a fifth of the world's population and a quarter of the world's total land area.

Although the proponents of Empire say it brought various economic developments to parts of the world it controlled, critics point to massacres, famines and the use of concentration camps by the British Empire.

1. Boer concentration camps

Armed Afrikaners on the veldt near Ladysmith during the second Boer War, circa 1900
During the Second Boer War (1899-1902), the British rounded up around a sixth of the Boer population - mainly women and children - and detained them in camps, which were overcrowded and prone to outbreaks of disease, with scant food rations.
Of the 107,000 people interned in the camps, 27,927 Boers died, along with an unknown number of black Africans.

2. Amritsar massacre

A young visitor looks at a painting depicting the Amritsar Massare at Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar

When peaceful protesters defied a government order and demonstrated against British colonial rule in Amritsar, India, on 13 April 1919, they were blocked inside the walled Jallianwala Gardens and fired upon by Gurkha soldiers.

The soldiers, under the orders of Brigadier Reginald Dyer, kept firing until they ran out of ammunition, killing between 379 and 1,000 protesters and injuring another 1,100 within 10 minutes.

Brigadier Dyer was later lauded a hero by the British public, who raised £26,000 for him as a thank you.

3. Partitioning of India

British lawyer and law lord Cyril Radcliffe, 1st Viscount Radcliffe (1899 - 1977) at the Colonial Office, London, July 1956
In 1947, Cyril Radcliffe was tasked with drawing the border between India and the newly created state of Pakistan over the course of a single lunch.

After Cyril Radcliffe split the subcontinent along religious lines, uprooting over 10 million people, Hindus in Pakistan and Muslims in India were forced to escape their homes as the situation quickly descended into violence.

Some estimates suggest up to one million people lost their lives in sectarian killings.

4. Mau Mau Uprising

Mau Mau suspects at one of the prison camps in 1953
Thousands of elderly Kenyans, who claim British colonial forces mistreated, raped and tortured them during the Mau Mau Uprising (1951-1960), have launched a £200m damages claim against the UK Government.

Members of the Kikuyu tribe were detained in camps, since described as "Britain's gulags" or concentration camps, where they allege they were systematically tortured and suffered serious sexual assault.

Estimates of the deaths vary widely: historian David Anderson estimates there were 20,000, whereas Caroline Elkins believes up to 100,000 could have died.

5. Famines in India

Starving children in India, 1945

Between 12 and 29 million Indians died of starvation while it was under the control of the British Empire, as millions of tons of wheat were exported to Britain as famine raged in India.

In 1943, up to four million Bengalis starved to death when Winston Churchill diverted food to British soldiers and countries such as Greece while a deadly famine swept through Bengal.

Talking about the Bengal famine in 1943, Churchill said: “I hate Indians. They are a beastly people with a beastly religion. The famine was their own fault for breeding like rabbits.”


The Problem With America

“The world outside our borders is a dark place, a scary place,” retired Navy Seal Michael Luttrell said to applause. “America is the light.” 

I found this quote in a Guardian article on the Republican national convention. It surely can be found in many news stories about the convention. This quote (and the fact that many in the audience applauded) sums up much of what is wrong with America. That a member of the military who, for whatever misguided reasons, chose to partake in the slaughter of Afghans, as Mr. Luttrell apparently did, should feel fear in some parts of the world is not surprising, but to claim that the entire world outside the US is frightening is truly amazing.

Does this fear extend to Canada? How about Japan? Italy? Is Italy scary?

Or was the gentleman perhaps exaggerating a bit? Possibly he is not really scared of the Irish, for example. Maybe he only fears brown people. Or Muslims. Or could it be that he is only afraid of people from places where he and his comrades committed atrocities?

As I sit here writing this in my house in one of the "dark" places outside the "light" United States, I see out my window trees swaying in the gentle summer breeze and I hear children playing. On the television, I see they are showing news of yet another American mass shooting. Maybe I am missing something, but it seems to me that American is a much scarier, darker place than the country in which I have chosen to live.

It also seems to me that much of the darkness in the world is the result of America's efforts to spread its "light" or whatever it is that it is trying to bring to the dark places. Possibly, instead of invading other countries and drone attacking brown people, America needs to look inward and fix its own problems.

If being "light" means being like America, the rest of are better of left in the dark.


Our “Merciful” Ending to the “Good War”

by Christian Appy

Or How Patriotism Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry

“Never, never waste a minute on regret. It's a waste of time.”
-- President Harry Truman

Here we are, 70 years after the nuclear obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and I'm wondering if we've come even one step closer to a moral reckoning with our status as the world's only country to use atomic weapons to slaughter human beings. Will an American president ever offer a formal apology? Will our country ever regret the dropping of “Little Boy” and “Fat Man,” those two bombs that burned hotter than the sun? Will it absorb the way they instantly vaporized thousands of victims, incinerated tens of thousands more, and created unimaginably powerful shockwaves and firestorms that ravaged everything for miles beyond ground zero? Will it finally come to grips with the “black rain” that spread radiation and killed even more people -- slowly and painfully -- leading in the end to a death toll for the two cities conservatively estimated at more than 250,000?
Given the last seven decades of perpetual militarization and nuclear “modernization” in this country, the answer may seem like an obvious no. Still, as a historian, I've been trying to dig a little deeper into our lack of national contrition. As I have, an odd fragment of Americana kept coming to mind, a line from the popular 1970 tearjerker Love Story: “Love,” says the female lead when her boyfriend begins to apologize, “means never having to say you're sorry.” It has to be one of the dumbest definitions ever to lodge in American memory, since real love often requires the strength to apologize and make amends.
It does, however, apply remarkably well to the way many Americans think about that broader form of love we call patriotism. With rare exceptions, like the 1988 congressional act that apologized to and compensated the Japanese-American victims of World War II internment, when it comes to the brute exercise of power, true patriotism has above all meant never having to say you're sorry. The very politicians who criticize other countries for not owning up to their wrong-doing regularly insist that we should never apologize for anything. In 1988, for example, after the U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian Gulf killing all 290 passengers (including 66 children), Vice President George H.W. Bush, then running for president, proclaimed, “I will never apologize for the United States. Ever. I don't care what the facts are.”
It turns out, however, that Bush's version of American remorselessness isn’t quite enough. After all, Americans prefer to view their country as peace-loving, despite having been at war constantly since 1941. This means they need more than denials and non-apologies. They need persuasive stories and explanations (however full of distortions and omissions). The tale developed to justify the bombings that led to a world in which the threat of human extinction has been a daily reality may be the most successful legitimizing narrative in our history. Seventy years later, it’s still deeply embedded in public memory and school textbooks, despite an ever-growing pile of evidence that contradicts it. Perhaps it’s time, so many decades into the age of apocalyptic peril, to review the American apologia for nuclear weapons -- the argument in their defense -- that ensured we would never have to say we're sorry.
The Hiroshima Apologia
On August 9, 1945, President Harry Truman delivered a radio address from the White House. “The world will note,” he said, “that the first atomic bomb was dropped on Hiroshima, a military base. That was because we wished in this first attack to avoid, insofar as possible, the killing of civilians.” He did not mention that a second atomic bomb had already been dropped on Nagasaki.
Truman understood, of course, that if Hiroshima was a “military base,” then so was Seattle; that the vast majority of its residents were civilians; and that perhaps 100,000 of them had already been killed. Indeed, he knew that Hiroshima was chosen not for its military significance but because it was one of only a handful of Japanese cities that had not already been firebombed and largely obliterated by American air power. U.S. officials, in fact, were intent on using the first atomic bombs to create maximum terror and destruction. They also wanted to measure their new weapon’s power and so selected the “virgin targets” of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. In July 1945, Secretary of War Henry Stimson informed Truman of his fear that, given all the firebombing of Japanese cities, there might not be a target left on which the atomic bomb could “show its strength” to the fullest. According to Stimson's diary, Truman “laughed and said he understood.”
The president soon dropped the “military base” justification. After all, despite Washington's effort to censor the most graphic images of atomic annihilation coming out of Hiroshima, the world quickly grasped that the U.S. had destroyed an entire city in a single blow with massive loss of life. So the president focused instead on an apologia that would work for at least the next seven decades. Its core arguments appeared in that same August 9th speech. “We have used [the atomic bomb] against those who attacked us without warning at Pearl Harbor,” he said, “against those who have starved and beaten and executed American prisoners of war, against those who have abandoned all pretense of obeying international laws of warfare. We have used it in order to shorten the agony of war, in order to save the lives of thousands and thousands of young Americans.”
By 1945, most Americans didn't care that the civilians of Hiroshima and Nagasaki had not committed Japan's war crimes. American wartime culture had for years drawn on a long history of “yellow peril” racism to paint the Japanese not just as inhuman, but as subhuman. As Truman put it in his diary, it was a country full of “savages” -- “ruthless, merciless, and fanatic” people so loyal to the emperor that every man, woman, and child would fight to the bitter end. In these years, magazines routinely depicted Japanese as monkeys, apes, insects, and vermin. Given such a foe, so went the prevailing view, there were no true “civilians” and nothing short of near extermination, or at least a powerful demonstration of America's willingness to proceed down that path, could ever force their surrender. As Admiral William “Bull” Halsey said in a 1944 press conference, “The only good Jap is a Jap who's been dead six months.”
In the years after World War II, the most virulent expressions of race hatred diminished, but not the widespread idea that the atomic bombs had been required to end the war, eliminating the need to invade the Japanese home islands where, it was confidently claimed, tooth-and-nail combat would cause enormous losses on both sides. The deadliest weapon in history, the one that opened the path to future Armageddon, had therefore saved lives. That was the stripped down mantra that provided the broadest and most enduring support for the introduction of nuclear warfare. By the time Truman, in retirement, published his memoir in 1955, he was ready to claim with some specificity that an invasion of Japan would have killed half-a-million Americans and at least as many Japanese.
Over the years, the ever-increasing number of lives those two A-bombs “saved” became a kind of sacred numerology. By 1991, for instance, President George H.W. Bush, praising Truman for his “tough, calculating decision,” claimed that those bombs had “spared millions of American lives.” By then, an atomic massacre had long been transformed into a mercy killing that prevented far greater suffering and slaughter.
Truman went to his grave insisting that he never had a single regret or a moment's doubt about his decision. Certainly, in the key weeks leading up to August 6, 1945, the record offers no evidence that he gave serious consideration to any alternative.
“Revisionists” Were Present at the Creation
Twenty years ago, the Smithsonian's National Air and Space Museum planned an ambitious exhibit to mark the 50th anniversary of the end of World War II. At its center was to be an extraordinary artifact -- the fuselage of the Enola Gay, the B-29 Superfortress used to drop the atomic bomb on Hiroshima. But the curators and historical consultants wanted something more than yet another triumphal celebration of American military science and technology. Instead, they sought to assemble a thought-provoking portrayal of the bomb's development, the debates about its use, and its long-term consequences. The museum sought to include some evidence challenging the persistent claim that it was dropped simply to end the war and “save lives.”
For starters, visitors would have learned that some of America's best-known World War II military commanders opposed using atomic weaponry. In fact, six of the seven five-star generals and admirals of that time believed that there was no reason to use them, that the Japanese were already defeated, knew it, and were likely to surrender before any American invasion could be launched. Several, like Admiral William Leahy and General Dwight Eisenhower, also had moral objections to the weapon. Leahy considered the atomic bombing of Japan “barbarous” and a violation of “every Christian ethic I have ever heard of and all of the known laws of war.”
Truman did not seriously consult with military commanders who had objections to using the bomb.  He did, however, ask a panel of military experts to offer an estimate of how many Americans might be killed if the United States launched the two major invasions of the Japanese home islands scheduled for November 1, 1945 and March 1, 1946. Their figure: 40,000 -- far below the half-million he would cite after the war. Even this estimate was based on the dubious assumption that Japan could continue to feed, fuel, and arm its troops with the U.S. in almost complete control of the seas and skies.
The Smithsonian also planned to inform its visitors that some key presidential advisers had urged Truman to drop his demand for “unconditional surrender” and allow Japan to keep the emperor on his throne, an alteration in peace terms that might have led to an almost immediate surrender. Truman rejected that advice, only to grant the same concession after the nuclear attacks.
Keep in mind, however, that part of Truman's motivation for dropping those bombs involved not the defeated Japanese, but the ascending Soviet Union. With the U.S.S.R. pledged to enter the war against Japan on August 8, 1945 (which it did), Truman worried that even briefly prolonging hostilities might allow the Soviets to claim a greater stake in East Asia. He and Secretary of State James Byrnes believed that a graphic demonstration of the power of the new bomb, then only in the possession of the United States, might also make that Communist power more “manageable” in Europe. The Smithsonian exhibit would have suggested that Cold War planning and posturing began in the concluding moments of World War II and that one legacy of Hiroshima would be the massive nuclear arms race of the decades to come.
In addition to displaying American artifacts like the Enola Gay, Smithsonian curators wanted to show some heartrending objects from the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima, including a schoolgirl's burnt lunchbox, a watch dial frozen at the instant of the bomb's explosion, a fused rosary, and photographs of the dead and dying. It would have been hard to look at these items beside that plane’s giant fuselage without feeling some sympathy for the victims of the blast.
None of this happened. The exhibit was canceled after a storm of protest. When the Air Force Association leaked a copy of the initial script to the media, critics denounced the Smithsonian for its “politically correct” and “anti-American” “revision” of history. The exhibit, they claimed, would be an insult to American veterans and fundamentally unpatriotic. Though conservatives led the charge, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution condemning the Smithsonian for being “revisionist and offensive” that included a tidy rehearsal of the official apologia: “The role of the Enola Gay... was momentous in helping to bring World War II to a merciful end, which resulted in saving the lives of Americans and Japanese.”
Merciful? Consider just this: the number of civilians killed at Hiroshima and Nagasaki alone was more than twice the number of American troops killed during the entire Pacific war.
In the end, the Smithsonian displayed little but the Enola Gay itself, a gleaming relic of American victory in the “Good War.”
Our Unbroken Faith in the Greatest Generation 
In the two decades since, we haven't come closer to a genuine public examination of history's only nuclear attack or to finding any major fault with how we waged what Studs Terkel famously dubbed “the Good War.” He used that term as the title for his classic 1984 oral history of World War II and included those quotation marks quite purposely to highlight the irony of such thinking about a war in which an estimated 60 million people died. In the years since, the term has become an American cliché, but the quotation marks have disappeared along with any hint of skepticism about our motives and conduct in those years.
Admittedly, when it comes to the launching of nuclear war (if not the firebombings that destroyed 67 Japanese cities and continued for five days after “Fat Man” was dropped on Nagasaki), there is some evidence of a more critical cast of mind in this country. Recent polls, for instance, show that “only” 56% of Americans now think we were right to use nuclear weapons against Japan, down a few points since the 1990s, while support among Americans under the age of 30 has finally fallen below 50%. You might also note that just after World War II, 85% of Americans supported the bombings.
Of course, such pro-bomb attitudes were hardly surprising in 1945, especially given the relief and joy at the war's victorious ending and the anti-Japanese sentiment of that moment. Far more surprising: by 1946, millions of Americans were immersed in John Hersey's best-selling book Hiroshima, a moving report from ground zero that explored the atomic bomb's impact through the experiences of six Japanese survivors. It began with these gripping lines:
“At exactly fifteen minutes past eight in the morning, on August 6, 1945, Japanese time, at the moment when the atomic bomb flashed above Hiroshima, Miss Toshiko Sasaki, a clerk in the personnel department of the East Asia Tin Works, had just sat down at her place in the plant office and was turning her head to speak to the girl at the next desk.”
Hiroshima remains a remarkable document for its unflinching depictions of the bomb's destructiveness and for treating America's former enemy with such dignity and humanity. “The crux of the matter,” Hersey concluded, “is whether total war in its present form is justifiable, even when it serves a just purpose. Does it not have material and spiritual evil as its consequences which far exceed whatever good might result?”
The ABC Radio Network thought Hersey's book so important that it hired four actors to read it in full on the air, reaching an even wider audience. Can you imagine a large American media company today devoting any significant air time to a work that engendered empathy for the victims of our twenty-first century wars? Or can you think of a recent popular book that prods us to consider the “material and spiritual evil” that came from our own participation in World War II? I can't.
In fact, in the first years after that war, as Paul Boyer showed in his superb book By the Bomb’s Early Light, some of America's triumphalism faded as fears grew that the very existence of nuclear weapons might leave the country newly vulnerable. After all, someday another power, possibly the Soviet Union, might use the new form of warfare against its creators, producing an American apocalypse that could never be seen as redemptive or merciful.
In the post-Cold War decades, however, those fears have again faded (unreasonably so since even a South Asian nuclear exchange between Pakistan and India could throw the whole planet into a version of nuclear winter).  Instead, the “Good War” has once again been embraced as unambiguously righteous. Consider, for example, the most recent book about World War II to hit it big, Laura Hillenbrand's Unbroken: A World War II Story of Survival, Resilience, and Redemption. Published in 2010, it remained on the New York Times best-seller list in hardcover for almost four years and has sold millions of copies. In its reach, it may even surpass Tom Brokaw's 1998 book, The Greatest Generation. A Hollywood adaptation of Unbroken appeared last Christmas.
Hillenbrand’s book does not pretend to be a comprehensive history of World War II or even of the war in the Pacific. It tells the story of Louis Zamperini, a child delinquent turned Olympic runner turned B-24 bombardier. In 1943, his plane was shot down in the Pacific. He and the pilot survived 47 days in a life raft despite near starvation, shark attacks, and strafing by Japanese planes. Finally captured by the Japanese, he endured a series of brutal POW camps where he was the victim of relentless sadistic beatings.
The book is decidedly a page-turner, but its focus on a single American's punishing ordeal and amazing recovery inhibits almost any impulse to move beyond the platitudes of nationalistic triumphalism and self-absorption or consider (among other things) the racism that so dramatically shaped American combat in the Pacific. That, at least, is the impression you get combing through some of the astonishing 25,000 customer reviews Unbroken has received on Amazon. “My respect for WWII veterans has soared,” a typical reviewer writes. “Thank you Laura Hillenbrand for loving our men at war,” writes another. It is “difficult to read of the inhumanity of the treatment of the courageous men serving our country.” And so on.
Unbroken devotes a page and a half to the atomic bombing of Hiroshima, all of it from the vantage point of the American crew of the Enola Gay. Hillenbrand raises concerns about the crew's safety: “No one knew for sure if... the bomber could get far enough away to survive what was coming.” She describes the impact of the shockwaves, not on the ground, but at 30,000 feet when they slammed into the Enola Gay, “pitching the men into the air.”
The film version of Unbroken evokes even less empathy for the Japanese experience of nuclear war, which brings to mind something a student told my graduate seminar last spring. He teaches high school social studies and when he talked with colleagues about the readings we were doing on Hiroshima, three of them responded with some version of the following: “You know, I used to think we were wrong to use nukes on Japan, but since I saw Unbroken I've started to think it was necessary.” We are, that is, still in the territory first plowed by Truman in that speech seven decades ago.
At the end of the film, this note appears on the screen: “Motivated by his faith, Louie came to see that the way forward was not revenge, but forgiveness. He returned to Japan, where he found and made peace with his former captors.”
That is indeed moving. Many of the prison camp guards apologized, as well they should have, and -- perhaps more surprisingly -- Zamperini forgave them. There is, however, no hint that there might be a need for apologies on the American side, too; no suggestion that our indiscriminate destruction of Japan, capped off by the atomic obliteration of two cities, might be, as Admiral Leahy put it, a violation of “all of the known laws of war.”
So here we are, 70 years later, and we seem, if anything, farther than ever from a rejection of the idea that launching atomic warfare on Japanese civilian populations was an act of mercy. Perhaps some future American president will finally apologize for our nuclear attacks, but one thing seems certain: no Japanese survivor of the bombs will be alive to hear it.


The Price of a Life

by Ariel Levy
The New Yorker

What’s the right way to compensate someone for decades of lost freedom?

As teen-agers on Long Island, John Restivo and Marge Neidecker spent hours in her blue Road Runner, cruising around the towns where Queens gives way to Nassau County. “We did a lot of drag racing,” Neidecker remembered. “I owned a souped-up car—so did everybody back in the seventies.” She had long, straight blond hair parted down the middle, like Joni Mitchell’s. Restivo was a tall, gangly guy; his nickname in the neighborhood was Wimpy. Sometimes they cut class at Lynbrook High School and rode around together, smoking cigarettes and listening to Bob Dylan. They loved his song “Hurricane,” and sang along as they drove: “Here comes the story of the Hurricane / the man the authorities came to blame / for something that he never done.” It seemed like a metaphor for all the injustices of adolescence.

After high school, they went their separate ways. In Neidecker’s yearbook, Restivo wrote, “Best of luck with the future.” She married at nineteen. He went to work for his father, a retired police officer, at the family’s moving-and-storage company. The Restivos were a close family: every Sunday they had dinner together, with as many as twenty relatives at the table.

When Restivo was twenty-four, his father died, of a heart attack. A year later, his girlfriend gave birth to their son. Suddenly, Restivo was the father of an infant and the oldest of three brothers in a business that had relied heavily on the family patriarch. He was overwhelmed, always tense. One day in March, 1985, he was driving in Oceanside, about to make a left onto Rockaway Avenue, to check on some of the company’s trucks. Three unmarked cars drove up next to him. The men inside said that they were cops, and told Restivo to pull over to the curb.

He was taken to the county-police headquarters, in Mineola, where Joseph Volpe, a beefy detective with bushy eyebrows, told him that they were investigating a homicide. Restivo’s first thought was that his girlfriend and their new baby had been murdered. But that wasn’t it. The body of a sixteen-year-old named Theresa Fusco had been found in the woods near the Hot Skates roller rink, where she’d worked at the snack bar; she had been raped, and strangled with a rope. Though Restivo had never met the victim and had no criminal record, it became clear that he was a suspect. One of the detectives grabbed him by the throat, he recalled recently. “He starts screaming, right in my face, ‘Is this how you killed her?’ And I’m, like, This is insane.” They kept him at the station for twenty hours, during which he was not allowed to rest or eat or call his girlfriend and let her know where he was. Restivo remembers that when he said he had a right to a lawyer, Volpe told him, “This is un-America: you have no rights here.” Then Volpe’s partner, Robert Dempsey, hit him in the face.

Restivo had grown up thinking of the police as good guys—his father had spent twenty years on the Nassau County force—and he was stunned by his treatment. As soon as he was released, he went to see a lawyer, who took photographs of his bruises and filed a complaint against the detectives. (Dempsey denied hitting Restivo.) But the police did not relinquish the case. “It’s quite possible that the fact that he called a lawyer right away made them think that he was guilty,” Anna Benvenutti Hoffmann, one of Restivo’s current lawyers, said. “Anything is a sign that you’re guilty, once they get a feeling that they don’t like something about somebody.”

Restivo’s phones were tapped. His home was bugged. “Everywhere I went, they started following me around,” he said. “I’m trying to continue running a business, and if I go to somebody’s house to do an estimate or a moving job, I’m afraid the cops are going to show up. Anybody I associated with, they’re starting to snatch off the street—and they’re not just bringing them in for a half-hour chat.” On the night of the crime, Restivo had been in Wantagh, sanding floors at his new house with a friend; the police brought the friend in and questioned him for ten hours. “They told me, ‘We’re going to turn your life into an effing nightmare,’ ” Restivo said. “ ‘And we’re going to turn your brother’s life into an effing nightmare. We’ll turn your mother’s life into a nightmare. We’ll turn your son’s life into a nightmare.’ And they did.”

There was a mounting sense of menace in Lynbrook and Oceanside at the time: Theresa Fusco was not the only teen-age girl to disappear from the area. Her friend Kelly Morrissey, a fifteen-year-old with winged hair and a giddy grin, had vanished the previous June; she was last seen on her way to the Captain Video arcade. The police had listed Morrissey as a runaway, though before she went missing she had laid out an outfit for the next day on her bed. They likewise assumed that Fusco had fled in protest after she was fired from Hot Skates, but her mother, Connie Napoli, insisted that her daughter had been abducted. “Police should trust a mother’s feelings,” Napoli said at the time. “It is so frustrating knowing your child is somewhere needing help, and you don’t know where to go.” When some children found Fusco’s naked body covered with leaves in the woods by the railroad tracks, people in the neighborhood began to panic. Then, a few months later, a nineteen-year-old named Jacqueline Martarella disappeared in Oceanside on her way to Burger King. Her body was found on a golf course; like Fusco, she had apparently been raped and strangled. There was enormous pressure on the police to find a culprit.

Volpe was an experienced member of the Nassau County force, but this was his first case as the lead detective on a homicide. There was no DNA testing available at that time, so even though the police took vaginal swabs from Fusco to ascertain that she’d been raped, they were unable to identify her assailant based on the semen they recovered. In January of 1985, after several months of investigation, Volpe heard that a local man—a veteran who suffered from P.T.S.D. and had been hospitalized for psychiatric illness—had been bragging that he knew who did it. He named John Restivo.

After the police brought Restivo in for questioning, Volpe began to build his case. During his interrogation, Restivo had mentioned an employee, a twenty-one-year-old named John Kogut. The police picked up Kogut after he had just finished a day of intense physical labor and then drunk a few beers and smoked a joint. Despite his insobriety, Kogut passed a polygraph test in which he insisted that he knew nothing about the crime. But the police told him that he had failed, and interrogated him for eighteen hours—by the end of which he had given six distinct, contradictory confessions. The last one was handwritten by one of the detectives. Kogut signed it, and then, sitting before a video camera, confessed to the crime, hewing to the police’s version of events: He had gone out with Restivo and his friend Dennis Halstead, a thirty-year-old father of five, who sometimes worked with them at the moving company. In Restivo’s van, the three men had picked Fusco up from the street and taken her to a cemetery. There, among the headstones, Halstead and Restivo had raped her and then persuaded Kogut to strangle her with a rope.

Kogut recanted his confession almost immediately. Restivo’s van had been up on blocks at his mother’s house on the night of the crime, and, anyway, the three men had never ridden in it together—Kogut and Halstead couldn’t stand each other. But it didn’t matter. The police impounded Restivo’s van, and on June 20, 1985, he and Halstead were arrested.

Dennis Halstead’s son Jason said that, before his father was taken in, “I wanted to be with him all the time. He was my hero.” When the police came to arrest Halstead, he and Jason were fishing off the Woodmere docks; Jason, who was twelve, had gone to check the lines. “When I turned back to yell at my dad we caught something, I saw him talking to two men in suits with police surrounding him,” Jason said. “All I heard him say was ‘I can’t believe you guys have the balls to do this.’ ” Dennis Halstead described the moment when Volpe approached him. “Jason looked at me,” he said. “I told him that everything would be O.K. And I told them, ‘Please don’t cuff me in front of my son.’ ”

Restivo was less self-possessed. When he was taken to jail, he said, “I was frightened of being sexually assaulted; I was frightened of being assaulted physically”—which he was, half a dozen times. “I was scared to death.” Bail was set at seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars, and he didn’t have the money, so he remained in jail for more than a year awaiting trial. “I can still remember that cell door clanging shut behind me,” he said. His lawyer warned him not to interact with anyone, because anything he said might be used against him. “Dudes would come tell me they’d be taken from the bullpen and brought up to the D.A.’s office, and they were told, ‘Listen, you’ve got this guy Restivo on your gallery. You tell us that he confessed to you, you’re out of there.’ ” He felt increasingly doomed. But some part of him believed this couldn’t continue much longer, that any day he would have his old life back.

During that time, Restivo’s girlfriend wrote him letters in the voice of their infant son: “I really miss you, Daddy. But you got to hang in there. We will clear up this whole mess. When you feel depressed, just think of coming home and playing with me.” By the time Restivo went to trial, in October, 1986, he had lost thirty pounds.

The prosecution’s case rested heavily on Volpe’s report to the district attorney, which noted a significant piece of evidence recovered from Restivo’s van: two strands of hair found on the floor which appeared to have come from Fusco’s head. Restivo’s lawyer argued that the police had submitted tainted evidence, but the prosecution was unfazed. (Fred Klein, the assistant district attorney assigned to the case, described Volpe to me as “a wonderful detective—one of the most tenacious, professional people I have ever worked with.”) Several jailhouse informants claimed to have heard Restivo bragging about raping the girl, and a friend recalled hearing him say, “She probably deserved it.” On the stand, Restivo disavowed the comment, saying, “It was a very insensitive remark, but I didn’t mean anything by it.” Klein held up a photograph of Fusco’s body and yelled in Restivo’s face, “What did she deserve?”

The men were found guilty. Restivo remembers hearing his mother, Frida, screaming in the back of the courtroom as the judge announced the verdict. He was sentenced to thirty-three years to life. Before he was led away in handcuffs, he read aloud an eighteen-page letter. “Each defendant in this case was offered a deal by the D.A. I myself was offered three to nine to ‘coöperate.’ But I have no knowledge of this crime and would not lie to try to protect myself,” he said. “If I must spend the rest of my life in prison for something I didn’t do, at least I’ll be able to sleep at night.”

“I haven’t slept through the night in thirty years,” Restivo said one afternoon, sitting on his back deck, near the Indian River Lagoon, in central Florida. It was a few days before New Year’s, and there were still Christmas bulbs shining in the palm fronds throughout the neighborhood. Restivo has lived there, in a little blue house, since he was released from prison, in 2003. He and Dennis Halstead were exonerated, with the help of DNA evidence, after serving eighteen years.

Restivo was wearing a T-shirt that said “What a Long Strange Trip It’s Been.” He is starting to go bald, and he has a silver mustache and dark purple circles under his eyes. In prison, he was often awakened by the sounds of other inmates fighting, or of rats skittering across the floor of his cell. Now he has terrible nightmares, and gets about three hours of sleep a night. Prison was “like a war zone,” he said. “Any day could be your day. With the prison gangs, to become a member in good standing you’ve got to go up to someone and”—he mimed slicing his cheek—“hit ’em with a razor. You feel—or, at least, I did—safest locked in your own cell.” He went back and forth between Green Haven prison and Clinton, not registering much difference. “It doesn’t matter where you are,” Restivo said. “If you’re going to be victimized, you’re going to be victimized.” Restivo survived because he’s big, and because he kept to himself.

Even before he was convicted, he started writing letters, “to anybody, any name I could come up with,” pleading his innocence, asking for help. In prison, he got a job in the law library, so that he could research his case. “I had a typewriter in my cell that had a seven-thousand-character memory,” he said. “When I understood what the enemy had access to—I mean, I didn’t know there was Lexis and all these things! They had spell check. I was using a dictionary.”

In 1985, when he went in, Restivo was a frightened twenty-six-year-old. When he was released, he was forty-four: middle-aged, with no real résumé, severe P.T.S.D., and a sense of bafflement about “why everybody was walking around holding their heads like they had an earache.” (Restivo was incarcerated before the advent of the cell phone.) Soon after his release, he went to Florida to help his old friend Marge Neidecker rebuild her house, after the collapse of her marriage. He never left.

Restivo and Neidecker live modestly, on the salary from her job at the local post office. In 2010, he received a $2.2-million settlement from the State of New York, but much of that went to lawyers and to his mother, who for two decades had spent everything she could spare on his case, at one point putting up her house as bond. Restivo tries to live as if that settlement were the last money he will ever have. “When they handed me that check, I’m not thinking, Ah, I’m rich!” he said. “I’m not eligible for Medicaid. I’m not eligible for Social Security. I never put money in a 401(k). That money has to last me forever.”

But in April, 2014, a jury in Islip awarded Restivo eighteen million dollars in damages—effectively, a million for each year of his imprisonment. Nassau County is appealing the ruling, so the money will likely take years to materialize, if it comes at all. “I’ve been through too much in this world to think anything’s a given,” Restivo said. “I can’t start living off that money. Then I put myself in a hole and I’m screwed for the rest of my life.” His expenses are minimal: “I could live on the beach.” But he was concerned about his mother. He had just returned from spending several months repairing her house in Lynbrook, and she was in poor health. “These are my wishes—to know that she’s taken care of,” he said.

Restivo often worries about other people, even people he barely knows. He doesn’t say goodbye before he hangs up the phone; he says, “Stay out of trouble.” When I went to see him, he was concerned that I’d get lost in the orange groves on the way to his house. In prison, he trained to become a registered H.I.V. counsellor and volunteered in the psychiatric unit. “All of these guys had different issues, and they couldn’t function in the general population,” Restivo said. “I would go up there three or four days a week and teach them basic math, basic reading skills. Sometimes basic life skills.” He worries about Dennis Halstead’s children, who Jason Halstead said have come to think of him as “a second father.”

Restivo also worries about his own son, whom he has not seen since 1986. His girlfriend brought the baby to visit him in jail, and told Restivo that she had a new boyfriend and was moving out of state. “That was the last time I seen the kid,” Restivo said. In 1988, she asked him to sign away his paternal rights, so that her husband could adopt the baby. Restivo considered the options. The boy could grow up with a man who he thought was his father, or he could grow up believing that his real father was in prison for no reason—or, worse, that he was a murderer. He sent a letter assenting to the adoption, and added a request: “You can do me one thing, send me a photo of him.”

At the trial for damages last year, Marge Neidecker testified that she hears Restivo cry whenever he takes a shower, and that he showers three or four times a day.

One of the earliest arguments for financial compensation for the wrongly incarcerated came in 1932, from the Yale law professor Edwin Borchard. In an influential book called “Convicting the Innocent: Sixty-five Actual Errors of Criminal Justice,” Borchard wrote, “When it is discovered after conviction that the wrong man was condemned, the least the State can do to right this essentially irreparable injury is to reimburse the innocent victim, by an appropriate indemnity for the loss and damage suffered.” He noted, “European countries have long recognized that such indemnity is a public obligation.” But it would be many years before the United States began puzzling through what constituted an “appropriate indemnity.” It wasn’t until the first DNA exoneration, in 1989, that most states began to seriously consider compensation.

There is still no consensus about the value of lost time. Missouri gives exonerees fifty dollars a day for time served, California twice that much. Massachusetts caps total compensation at half a million dollars. In Maine, the limit is three hundred thousand; in Florida, it’s two million. The variation is largely arbitrary. “If there’s a logic to it, I haven’t seen it,” Robert J. Norris, a researcher at SUNY Albany who has studied compensation statutes, told me. In Wisconsin, no matter how long an exoneree has served, the state will pay no more than twenty-five thousand dollars—the same figure that its legislators established in 1979. “They just never changed it,” Norris said. “They even amended their statute in 1987, but they didn’t change the amount.” Most states levy taxes on payment. Twenty states have no compensation statutes at all.

Fifteen hundred and seventy-five people have been exonerated in the U.S. The best off are those whom Brandon Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law who has written extensively on post-conviction litigation, describes as “the ones that win the tort lottery.” These are exonerees who seek compensation through the courts, arguing that their fundamental civil rights were violated by the police or by prosecutors. (The same legal principle is at issue in federal suits brought by people who have been shot by the police.) In such cases, the potential damages are unlimited. But the standard of proof is high. “Police officers have qualified immunity,” Garrett told me. “They can violate your constitutional rights—reasonably but not egregiously.”

One of the major obstacles to filing these suits is that plaintiffs don’t have access to law-enforcement records—which typically contain the best evidence of misconduct. A federal civil-rights suit, Garrett said, provides “the Mercedes-Benz of discovery: seven-hour depositions with the key witnesses, all the police files, all the prosecutor’s files.” But that material can be obtained only after a suit has been launched. “It’s a Catch-22,” Garrett continued. “You can’t file a lawsuit without evidence to support your claim, and you can’t necessarily get at that evidence without the kind of discovery available to you only from a federal civil-rights case. One of the hardest things I had to do in practice is explain to an exoneree why we can’t file.”

In 1988, a year into his sentence, Restivo read in the law library about a case in which a felon was convicted on the basis of DNA evidence. “I figured, if they’re doing this to convict somebody, they’re going to have to do this to let me out,” he said. At his urging, his lawyer filed a motion requesting DNA testing on the vaginal swabs from the original investigation. That motion was denied, and Restivo’s lawyer had to petition for another five years before it was granted. “We had DNA tests done in ’93, ’94, and ’95, by three different labs,” Restivo said. “The first test was inconclusive; the second and third tests excluded all three of us.” But it wasn’t enough. “They argued in court that these tests weren’t reliable,” he told me, his voice rising. “Wait a minute—it would be a billion-to-one shot that both of these tests were wrong!” Nassau County argued that the swabs had been partially consumed by previous serological tests and that the incriminating DNA could have been removed.

As DNA testing began to draw attention to the incidence of wrongful conviction in the United States—which has been estimated at as high as five per cent—an “innocence movement” coalesced, devoted to uncovering its causes and freeing its victims. In 1992, the attorneys Barry Scheck and Peter Neufeld founded the Innocence Project, the most prominent legal organization devoted to DNA exoneration. The tests revealed deep flaws in a variety of law-enforcement practices and assumptions—mistaken eyewitness identification, for instance, has been shown to contribute to seventy per cent of wrongful convictions. (At the time, Scheck told me that the way police lineups were conducted would one day be considered as reliable as witch trials.) In about half of the three hundred and twenty-nine DNA-exoneration cases since then, improper forensics have played a role; twenty-seven per cent have involved false confessions, and fifteen per cent have involved unreliable informants. All these factors were at play in the convictions of Restivo, Halstead, and Kogut.

In 2002, the Innocence Project assigned a young lawyer named Nina Morrison to Restivo’s case, and, after a year of work, she made the decisive breakthrough. It happened by accident, one afternoon when Morrison was visiting the police department in Mineola. “I had gone with a couple lawyers to look at crime-scene photographs,” she said. “And then, as we’re going through the boxes, the prosecutor and I pulled out an envelope, and it’s marked ‘vaginal swabs.’ And you’re, like, Oh—look at that.” In the envelope was an intact swab, the final piece of evidence that they needed to have the original convictions vacated. On June 11, 2003, the three men were released from prison.

Klein, the prosecutor in the initial trial, told me, “The first feeling is, there must be something wrong with the test—it can’t be. These people were properly convicted. At that point, it becomes: What did we miss? What other evidence is there?” Kogut was forced to go back to trial, largely because he had confessed, and in court Nassau County’s case began to look suspicious. DNA testing confirmed that the strands of hair Detective Volpe claimed to have discovered in Restivo’s van belonged to Theresa Fusco. But they displayed a marker of decomposition called “postmortem root banding,” which occurs only many hours after death, and forensic evidence showed that Fusco’s body had been left in the woods soon after she was murdered. What’s more, the hairs were pristine, free of the debris and the damage from trampling that marked other stray hairs found in Restivo’s van. The judge concluded that they must have come from elsewhere, perhaps from the autopsy; apparently the police had commingled them—accidentally or deliberately—with hairs from the van. On December 21, 2005, Kogut was acquitted.

Kogut’s trial had stretched on for two years, while Restivo worried constantly that he, too, would be retried. “If a police officer drove down the street for any reason, he called me in a panic that they were canvassing his neighborhood and somebody was going to fabricate a statement and say that he admitted to murder,” Morrison said. “It’s not atypical for clients to have irrational fears that people are following them, tapping their phones, after their release. In John’s case, I couldn’t tell him that it wasn’t true, because they had done it the first time.” After Kogut was acquitted, the prosecution declined to retry Halstead and Restivo. “Once the case was really over, he was a lot more free—legally and mentally,” Morrison said.

But the case remained the focus of Restivo’s life. “If I wasn’t reading documents, if I was just laying back keeping my fingers crossed, it’d be different,” he said. “But my mind is always going.” In 2007, he sued the State of New York, and settled out of court for $2.2 million. Along with Kogut and Halstead, he also filed a federal civil-rights suit against Nassau County. Given access to the police files, Restivo learned how Volpe had built the case against him. In order to open a wiretap on Restivo’s phone, Volpe had reported that the hairs belonged to Fusco before a lab had time to analyze them, and had claimed that there was “possible human blood” in the van, even though a serologist told him that there was none. Restivo also learned that Volpe had abandoned a promising lead in order to focus on him. The night that Fusco was last seen, wearing a pair of striped jeans, a tan Oldsmobile went missing, less than a mile away. A week later, the car was found, with the windshield smashed and the license plates changed. After Fusco’s body was discovered, the car’s owner heard about the case on the news. He went to the police and told them that he had noticed a pair of unfamiliar striped jeans wadded under the passenger seat, and that a length of rope was missing from the vehicle. Volpe searched the car and took statements from witnesses. But he did not mention the car or the striped jeans or the rope in his report to the district attorney’s office.

Fred Klein, who was an assistant district attorney for twenty-seven years and is now a professor at Hofstra Law School, said that the idea that the police had manipulated the evidence “intentionally would just be beyond my comprehension.” The jury was similarly skeptical. In 2012, Restivo and the other men lost their case, and found themselves vilified again. “Our police department has been vindicated,” Nassau County’s attorney*, John Ciampoli, announced at a press conference afterward. Even though the three had been exonerated, Ciampoli insisted that they were “criminals,” who were somehow “responsible for what happened to Theresa Fusco.” He concluded that they had “been denied a chance to turn what, in my opinion, is a heinous crime into a payday that would cripple Nassau County.”

Compensation is intended in part as a deterrent: a municipality that has to pay heavily for police or prosecutorial misconduct ought to be less likely to allow it to happen again. But it is taxpayers, not police or prosecutors, who bear the costs of litigation and compensation. Prosecutors enjoy almost total immunity in cases of misconduct, even if they deliberately withhold exculpatory evidence from a jury. A 2011 Supreme Court ruling also made it virtually impossible to sue a prosecutor’s office for such violations. And, unless there is a civil-rights trial, there is no examination of the police practices that contributed to a wrongful conviction: it is seen simply as collateral damage in the fight against crime. (North Carolina is the only state with an alternative; in 2006, it set up the Innocence Inquiry Commission to review claims of innocence outside the appellate-court process.) Klein pointed out that prosecutors in many states are already bound by ethics statutes. But, he added, “practically speaking, most prosecutors don’t spend too much time worrying about that. They assume that the police did their job.”

The other reason for awarding money is, of course, to compensate for a harm committed by the state. Some of that harm is purely financial: a person who has spent decades in prison, rather than developing a career, can emerge at forty-five and find herself eligible for the same jobs that she was eligible for at twenty-two. “I fill out applications for the dollar store, for CVS,” an exoneree named Cathy Watkins told me recently. Watkins spent eighteen years in prison for the shooting of a cabdriver in the Bronx, which was later found to have been committed by members of a narcotics-trafficking gang called Sex Money Murder. She has been out for two and a half years, without any compensation, and she finds the process of seeking employment in a digital world confounding. “ ‘Upload your résumé online’—well, how do you do that?” she said. Had she been free to pursue a career, Watkins was sure she’d have built up a pension or savings. Instead, she is dependent on the generosity of others, a position that she finds compromising and unjust. “I worked for eighteen years!” she said. “Slave labor. It was prison—you have to do these things.”

People who spend many years in institutions tend to develop an overwhelming sense of helplessness. (This holds whether they are guilty or innocent—and, indeed, whether the institution is a prison or a mental hospital.) Watkins, like many other exonerees, told me, “I feel like a newborn baby.” She wished that she had some help navigating the world; the guilty, at least, had parole officers. “I want someone to take me by the hand and say, ‘O.K., Cathy, I’m going to show you how to do this. This was our mistake. Let us help you.’ ”

But many exonerated people are excluded from the system that supports other former convicts. “There are lots of programs designed for ex-offenders, to help them get past substance abuse, anger issues, to help them reintegrate and avoid recidivism,” Karen Daniel, the director of the Center on Wrongful Convictions, at Northwestern University’s School of Law, said. “There is nothing really like that in place for exonerees.” There are rarely enough of them in a given place to justify a program—and they may be loath to spend more time in settings that equate them with criminals. “But their needs are enormous,” Daniel continued. “They often have P.T.S.D. and need psychological services. They need to be shown how to use public transportation. There’s adjustment to family; there’s accepting that not everybody believes that you were wrongly convicted.”

Only five states provide exonerees with mental-health services or medical treatment—and, after years of substandard care, many former inmates have health problems. Only four offer job-placement assistance. Texas has what many regard as the most thoughtful statute. (Not coincidentally, it is also the state with the most DNA exonerations.) A person who is exonerated in Texas has access to health insurance, free tuition at any state university, and a year of free counselling. He is eligible for a monthly annuity, as well as a payout of eighty thousand dollars for each year of incarceration, without having to file suit. So there is a relatively short period when he has no job, no home, no vehicle, no professional connections, and no money—and is thus dependent on his family for everything, as though he were a child.

“When you get out, it’s like you are new—you don’t know anything,” Richard Miles, who was incarcerated for fifteen years in Texas because of false eyewitness testimony, said. When he went in, he was nineteen years old and very naïve. “All I did growing up was go to church and school,” he told me. “Getting locked up in prison was a scary situation: they’re taking you someplace where you only read about it or see it on TV. You don’t really know how to respond to a place like that.” But when he came out, at thirty-four, he didn’t know how to respond to anything else. “You’ve been isolated, so a lot of the social skills that people rely on every day, you didn’t have those.”

Miles had received $1.2 million in compensation, and I asked him if it had been sufficient. “Me, personally, it didn’t matter how much the amount was,” he said. “It didn’t give me back anything that I lost.”

One morning this fall, twenty exonerees wearing T-shirts that said “I didn’t do it” filled the headquarters of Centurion Ministries, in a drab office park in Princeton, New Jersey. Centurion is a tiny organization, with only ten people on staff, which seeks to free the wrongly incarcerated. One of its chief investigators, a rumpled eighty-two-year-old retired math teacher named Richard Hepburn, recently finished a case that required him to go to Montana fifty-five times and knock on doors. “How lucky am I—at my age!—to have this kind of excitement?” he said.

Centurion’s investigators spend an average of two decades on a case. They have succeeded fifty-three times. On a wall in the office, they keep a black felt board with the names of people whose cases they’re pursuing, and that morning they were ceremonially removing Mark Schand’s and Milton Scarborough’s. The two men had served a combined sixty-three years in prison, and, later that afternoon, Centurion was throwing a “freedom party” for them, in the ballroom of the local Marriott hotel.

Schand, a fifty-year-old African-American, was convicted of a murder in Massachusetts, even though six witnesses—including his pregnant wife, Mia—placed him at her beauty salon, in Hartford, Connecticut, at the time. The assistant district attorney who prosecuted the case, Francis Bloom, has since been publicly censured for fabricating a confession and forging signatures in another case; he is now working as a personal-injury lawyer. “If these D.A.s were led away from their families like we’re led away from ours, wrongful convictions would come to a screaming halt,” Schand said.

Every Tuesday for twenty-seven years, Mia Schand drove five hours to see her husband in prison. At the ceremony that morning, she was alternately smiling and crying, standing with Schand’s three sons, whom she had raised in his absence. During his decades away from the family, Schand said, “I just wanted to get back to my babies.” After he took his name off the board, his children—little boys when Schand left, now tall, handsome young men—lifted him up on their shoulders, and everyone hollered and clapped.

Scarborough, a seventy-five-year-old white man, sat stoop-shouldered and smiling in a wheelchair. When he was thirty-seven, he went on trial, along with two other men, for murdering a family in central Pennsylvania. He was convicted based on the testimony of three drug addicts, all of whom later said that investigators gave them leniency in exchange for false testimony. (“I remember telling the police, ‘Tell me what you want me to say and I will say it,’ ” one admitted in an affidavit.) Scarborough, walking with a cane, approached the felt board with the help of his niece, who took him in after his release, in 2013. Together, they removed his name, letter by letter. “The prison system, I don’t have much to say about it,” Scarborough said to the group as their applause died down. “Except they don’t feed you too good.” Everyone laughed, and many of the men nodded. The state never formally acknowledged Scarborough’s innocence; instead, it offered a deal, in which he agreed to drop his appeals in exchange for having his sentence commuted. As a result, he will never receive any compensation. He would be homeless if not for his niece.

Centurion worked on Restivo’s case for nearly a decade before the Innocence Project got involved, and he is a fixture at their events now. Late that night, after the freedom party died down, people gathered at a bar. Restivo, who had changed into a burgundy T-shirt with a picture of a fish skeleton above the words “Fillet and Release,” sat at a tall cocktail table, drinking vodka and talking about relationships with a fellow-exoneree named Frank O’Connell, who had served twenty-seven years for murder. “I missed out on companionship; I missed out on all that crap,” O’Connell, a tall, blue-eyed man who was once a high-school football star, said. “I just meet you. Do I tell you I’m an exoneree? That I was in prison? Or do I want you to like me for me—as a father, as a hard worker? So I’m not going to tell you I was locked up. But I don’t know about real estate. You bought homes and stuff. You had a new car with financing—I can’t tell you about that.” He gestured at Restivo. “That’s the kind of thing only we would feel. There’s that gap in life of what we lost.”

Restivo described another problem that the men shared: “I go in, I’m in my twenties. I come out, I’m forty-four, but I’m still looking at girls who are twenty-six!” I suggested that he had that in common with most forty-four-year-old men, whether or not they’d been imprisoned. The exonerees all insisted that it was different. O’Connell, who is fifty-seven, complained that “most of the women my age, they’ve had their fun,” and were only looking for a husband. But he didn’t love the alternative: “When I’m single and I’m alone, I feel isolated—I feel like I’m in the hole! I got a TV, I got a phone, but I’m in the hole!”

Since being released, in 2012, O’Connell has been preparing a civil-rights suit against Los Angeles County. “I made it clear: we’re not playing the two-, three-million-dollar game,” he said. “I will accept twelve million with a public apology, or fourteen million with a private apology to me and my family, or eighteen million with no apology whatsoever. Otherwise, we’re going to trial.” For Los Angeles County to acknowledge that O’Connell was framed for murder would be worth six million dollars, then. “It’s not about the money. It’s the spanking,” he said. “I want them to take responsibility. I have to take responsibility if I speed in my car. What’s the difference? If they would say, ‘I was wrong, and I’m sorry,’ I would say, ‘I forgive you.’ ”

Even as O’Connell specified what he wanted in the way of recompense, his tone was laid-back, Californian. (He’d had a breakthrough while he was in prison, he said, after reading the work of the self-help author Eckhart Tolle.) “We learn when we’re in there that all that anger does no good,” O’Connell said. “You can’t change what happened to you. You understand, hey, they’re dirty. It’s not just the cops. The judges are; the D.A.s are. It’s a game.”

After the failed federal suit, in 2012, Restivo and Halstead went to court again, this time without Kogut and the burden of his false confession. It was a two-part trial. First, they had to establish that Nassau County was liable, which required proving that the police had knowingly deprived them of the right to a fair trial. “You have to re-litigate your innocence,” as the law professor Brandon Garrett put it. Restivo sat through all the old allegations again. “The deposition they put me through was over two days, for fourteen hours,” he said. “These people attacked me and attacked me and attacked me.” Nassau County was the defendant, but that’s not the way it felt.

The trial lasted four weeks, and when it was over Restivo felt—fleetingly—vindicated. “When that jury came back with that verdict sheet and said Volpe planted and withheld evidence? That was accountability,” Restivo said. “And that’s the only accountability I’m ever going to get.” Volpe received a commendation for his work in the Fusco trial, and retired in 2002 to become a car salesman. By then, the state had settled another case, in which he was accused of soliciting a false confession. He died in 2011. Marge Neidecker told me that it was the happiest day of Restivo’s life.

The second phase of the trial was for damages: the jury was charged with determining the monetary value of the losses that Halstead and Restivo had suffered, which meant that their present pain had to be examined. There was excruciating testimony from Halstead’s children, who talked about being separated from their father. His daughter Melissa—who had talked to him on the phone twice a week for eighteen years—sobbed in the courtroom as he read aloud a letter that she’d written to him when she was eleven years old: “You are not just the best father, you are my best friend.” After his release, Halstead lived with his son Jason and his family. But, ultimately, Jason asked him to leave: Halstead’s drinking was making life difficult. He is living in Tallahassee, and has been in and out of rehab.

Nassau County’s lawyer argued that Halstead would have been damaged anyway: his brother died when he was three, he was sexually assaulted when he was seven, and he was removed from the care of his negligent mother when he was twelve. As the attorney put it, “All of his problems have seeds in the past.” When he questioned Restivo, he emphasized Restivo’s already strained relationship with his girlfriend, implying that he might have lost his son even if he hadn’t gone to prison.

The jurors rejected those arguments. It took them less than two hours to come back with a damage award: thirty-six million dollars. “When they said that number, it was, like, wow,” Restivo said. “Because the jury really got it. It put a real big smile on my mother’s face, because she has been fighting these people for all these years. So it wasn’t about the money. Although it is about the money. I don’t want to say that it isn’t about the money.”

Nina Morrison, of the Innocence Project, told me, “I think for a lot of the clients there’s a sense that this is going to be the thing that helps them move on. But then the jury goes home; we all go home. And then, at the end of the day, they are still left with the enormity of what they’ve lost.”

At the Centurion party, I overheard Michael Austin, a tall black man with a shaved head and a mellow demeanor, tell a recent exoneree, “You are still in prison.” Austin told me later that he had been through the same process; he spent twenty-seven years in a Maryland prison, and then “it took me ten years to feel like I was really, really home again.” He vividly remembers the day he was released. “One of the C.O.s”—corrections officers—“handed me a box with my property, and I started walking away as if I had on shackles. The C.O. said, ‘Mike, why you walking like that?’ I looked down at my ankles and said, ‘Oh, man—you’re right.’ ”

Austin had received $1.4 million in compensation. He knew other exonerees who had received much more money, but he didn’t envy them; he’d seen things end badly. “I know a woman who got fourteen million. She bought her mother a house, her sister a house, herself two houses.” Before long, she had run out of money. It happened frequently, he said. “If you have a family that has been taking care of you while you were incarcerated, your primary objective is to take care of them now.” It was a way of feeling like a person again—an adult, with agency.

Karen Daniel, of Northwestern, told me that money dispersed over time was often more effective than lump sums, for precisely this reason. “I have seen too many clients go through all their money, and then there’s never going to be any more,” she said. “It doesn’t always happen in the expected ways. Some people might make poor choices and buy a fancy car. But, a lot of times, as soon as somebody is seen by relatives and friends as being exonerated, the relatives come out of the woodwork, the hands come out.”

But the families of exonerees have suffered, too. Jason Halstead got a job when he was in high school to pay the phone bills he accumulated calling his father in prison. (Halstead received a $2.2-million settlement from New York State, and gave a third of it to his children.) Richard Miles told me, “I see my sister going through things, my brother going through things. How can I have something they don’t?” To Miles, sharing his compensation seemed like a matter of justice. “They were coming to visit me—all those years, it was like they were locked up, too.”

Money feels, at least initially, like vindication: a jury or a government would not award millions of dollars if it didn’t acknowledge the gravity of the wrong. “If somebody says, Let me give you 1.4 million—or eight million!—you think, Now everybody knows that I was really, really innocent,” Austin said. “And at the moment you have that feeling of complete freedom. But how long does that last?” Ultimately, he felt, it was much more important to have a sense of purpose. When he came home to Baltimore, he got a job counselling troubled kids. “So I’m cool—I got a career,” he said. “When the money came in, I just basically invested it.” After three decades of being trapped, he also decided to have some adventures. “I went to South Africa, Jamaica. I went to Canada.” He’d always wanted to be a singer; he loved the music scene in Durban, and sat in with some bands there.

After Richard Miles was released from prison, he started an organization, Miles of Freedom, to provide services for communities affected by incarceration: a “Freedom Shuttle,” for relatives to visit loved ones in prison; a lawn-care service to employ former inmates. “If you don’t find anything to channel any type of negative thoughts into, you’re going to just be thinking about it all day, every day,” he told me. “You’re just going to be stuck in this victimized state. I was already in a victimized state for fifteen years.” Miles had married since his release, and his wife was pregnant with their first child, a daughter. “I oftentimes say, We’ve all been in prison,” he said. “We imprison ourselves in relationships, in financial bankruptcy—we lock our own selves up. The only difference between my prison and yours is somebody else had the key to my release.”

The years that Austin and Miles spent in prison seemed to have rendered them not bitter or weakened but uncommonly beneficent—a quality that struck me again and again when I met exonerees. “I haven’t known one of them who hasn’t had this moment of transcendence,” Barry Scheck, of the Innocence Project, told me. He had a theory: the wrongly convicted who don’t attain a kind of enlightened surrender are simply unable to survive. “We have lost a lot of clients who could not get past it—just can’t cope, have been literally driven crazy, gotten into fatal fights, committed suicide.” The choice for the wrongly convicted was stark: transcend or die.

Marge Neidecker and John Restivo married in 2009. “I figured I needed him, and he needed me,” Neidecker said one afternoon, when we were eating lunch at a tiki bar on the riverbank near their house. A lean, muscular woman with blond bangs, Neidecker was wearing tight jeans, a black tank top, and glasses that went darker in bright light. When Restivo got out of prison, she, too, was going through a difficult time, and he was “a lifesaver,” she said. “I came home every night and he would have fixed something, or made a great dinner—he knows I work hard.” It was very different from her last relationship. “I’d had enough of marriage,” Neidecker said, grimacing. I asked her why she’d gone back to it, and she replied, emphatically, “Because I loved his ass.” After Restivo renovated her house, they decorated the living room with several pictures of Bob Dylan.

Lately, Restivo has been growing pineapples in the back yard. “They’re not like the pineapples you buy in the store, all hard,” he said. “I let them stay on the plant until they get soft and gold. To say they smell good would be an understatement.” Sometimes he volunteers to go into the woods near the lagoon—“where other people wouldn’t dare go,” Neidecker said—to distribute food to homeless people who sleep there.

A few times a week, when the weather is good, Restivo goes to the beach and casts for snook and bluefish and tarpon. Mostly he catches them and then lets them go. In his living room, he’d hung a placard that reads, “The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable, and a perpetual series of occasions for hope.” “Sitting there in the prison cell and filing motion after motion after motion, and you’re hopeful—it’s kind of the same thing,” he told me.

Restivo said that he wasn’t impatient to receive his money—“I’m used to waiting”—and that he didn’t fantasize about what he would do with eighteen million dollars. He thought about it for a moment. “I mean, listen, I would, like, you know, bless myself with a nice boat.” He already had a name for it: Best Revenge.

Whether or not the money comes through, Neidecker and Restivo are looking forward to doing some travelling. “John wants to go to Alaska and go ice fishing,” she said. “We both want to go to Northern California. But roughing it? No.” She meant no camping out: she wanted to travel in a Winnebago. Neidecker’s retirement from the post office was not far off; soon she would get her pension, and they could go whenever they wanted. She shrugged and said, “I’ve done my time.” ♦

*An earlier version of this article misstated John Ciampoli’s position.

The Rape of East Timor: "Sounds Like Fun"

by John Pilger

Secret documents found in the Australian National Archives provide a glimpse of how one of the greatest crimes of the 20th century was executed and covered up. They also help us understand how and for whom the world is run.

The documents refer to East Timor, now known as Timor-Leste, and were written by diplomats in the Australian embassy in Jakarta. The date was November 1976, less than a year after the Indonesian dictator General Suharto seized the then Portuguese colony on the island of Timor.

The terror that followed has few parallels; not even Pol Pot succeeded in killing, proportionally, as many Cambodians as Suharto and his fellow generals killed in East Timor. Out of a population of almost a million, up to a third were extinguished.

This was the second holocaust for which Suharto was responsible. A decade earlier, in 1965, Suharto wrested power in Indonesia in a bloodbath that took more than a million lives. The CIA reported: "In terms of numbers killed, the massacres rank as one of the worst mass murders of the 20th century."

This was greeted in the Western press as "a gleam of light in Asia" (Time). The BBC's correspondent in South East Asia, Roland Challis, later described the cover-up of the massacres as a triumph of media complicity and silence; the "official line" was that Suharto had "saved" Indonesia from a communist takeover.

"Of course my British sources knew what the American plan was," he told me. "There were bodies being washed up on the lawns of the British consulate in Surabaya, and British warships escorted a ship full of Indonesian troops, so that they could take part in this terrible holocaust. It was only much later that we learned that the American embassy was supplying [Suharto with] names and ticking them off as they were killed. There was a deal, you see. In establishing the Suharto regime, the involvement of the [US-dominated] International Monetary Fund and the World Bank were part of it. That was the deal."

I have interviewed many of the survivors of 1965, including the acclaimed Indonesian novelist Pramoedya Ananta Toer, who bore witness to an epic of suffering "forgotten" in the West because Suharto was "our man". A second holocaust in resource-rich East Timor, an undefended colony, was almost inevitable.

In 1994, I filmed clandestinely in occupied East Timor; I found a land of crosses and unforgettable grief. In my film, Death of a Nation, there is a sequence shot on board an Australian aircraft flying over the Timor Sea. A party is in progress. Two men in suits are toasting each other in champagne. "This is a uniquely historical moment," babbles one of them, "that is truly, uniquely historical."

This is Australia's foreign minister, Gareth Evans. The other man is Ali Alatas, the principal mouthpiece of Suharto. It is 1989 and they are making a symbolic flight to celebrate a piratical deal they called a "treaty". This allowed Australia, the Suharto dictatorship and the international oil companies to divide the spoils of East Timor's oil and gas resources.

Thanks to Evans, Australia's then prime minister, Paul Keating -- who regarded Suharto as a father figure -- and a gang that ran Australia's foreign policy establishment, Australia distinguished itself as the only western country formally to recognise Suharto's genocidal conquest. The prize, said Evans, was "zillions" of dollars.

Members of this gang reappeared the other day in documents found in the National Archives by two researchers from Monash University in Melbourne, Sara Niner and Kim McGrath. In their own handwriting, senior officials of the Department of Foreign Affairs mock reports of the rape, torture and execution of East Timorese by Indonesian troops. In scribbled annotations on a memorandum that refers to atrocities in a concentration camp, one diplomat wrote: "sounds like fun". Another wrote: "sounds like the population are in raptures."

Referring to a report by the Indonesian resistance, Fretilin, that describes Indonesia as an "impotent" invader, another diplomat sneered: "If 'the enemy was impotent', as stated, how come they are daily raping the captured population? Or is the former a result of the latter?"

The documents, says Sarah Niner, are "vivid evidence of the lack of empathy and concern for human rights abuses in East Timor" in the Department of Foreign Affairs. "The archives reveal that this culture of cover-up is closely tied to the DFA's need to recognise Indonesian sovereignty over East Timor so as to commence negotiations over the petroleum in the East Timor Sea."

This was a conspiracy to steal East Timor's oil and gas. In leaked diplomatic cables in August 1975, the Australian Ambassador to Jakarta, Richard Woolcott, wrote to Canberra: "It would seem to me that the Department [of Minerals and Energy] might well have an interest in closing the present gap in the agreed sea border and this could be much more readily negotiated with Indonesia ... than with Portugal or independent Portuguese Timor." Woolcott revealed that he had been briefed on Indonesia's secret plans for an invasion. He cabled Canberra that the government should "assist public understanding in Australia" to counter "criticism of Indonesia".

In 1993, I interviewed C. Philip Liechty, a former senior CIA operations officer in the Jakarta embassy during the invasion of East Timor. He told me: "Suharto was given the green light [by the US] to do what he did. We supplied them with everything they needed [from] M16 rifles [to] US military logistical support ... maybe 200,000 people, almost all of them non-combatants died. When the atrocities began to appear in the CIA reporting, the way they dealt with these was to cover them up as long as possible; and when they couldn't be covered up any longer, they were reported in a watered-down, very generalised way, so that even our own sourcing was sabotaged."

I asked Liechty what would have happened had someone spoken out. "Your career would end," he replied. He said his interview with me was one way of making amends for "how badly I feel".

The gang in the Australian embassy in Jakarta appear to suffer no such anguish. One of the scribblers on the documents, Cavan Hogue, told the Sydney Morning Herald: "It does look like my handwriting. If I made a comment like that, being the cynical bugger that I am, it would certainly have been in the spirit of irony and sarcasm. It's about the [Fretilin] press release, not the Timorese." Hogue said there were "atrocities on all sides".

As one who reported and filmed the evidence of genocide, I find this last remark especially profane. The Fretilin "propaganda" he derides was accurate. The subsequent report of the United Nations on East Timor describes thousands of cases of summary execution and violence against women by Suharto's Kopassus special forces, many of whom were trained in Australia. "Rape, sexual slavery and sexual violence were tools used as part of the campaign designed to inflict a deep experience of terror, powerlessness and hopelessness upon pro-independence supporters," says the UN.

Cavan Hogue, the joker and "cynical bugger", was promoted to senior ambassador and eventually retired on a generous pension. Richard Woolcott was made head of the Department of Foreign Affairs in Canberra and, in retirement, has lectured widely as a "respected diplomatic intellectual".

Journalists watered at the Australian embassy in Jakarta, notably those employed by Rupert Murdoch, who controls almost 70 per cent of Australia's capital city press. Murdoch's correspondent in Indonesia was Patrick Walters, who reported that Jakarta's "economic achievements" in East Timor were "impressive", as was Jakarta's "generous" development of the blood-soaked territory. As for the East Timorese resistance, it was "leaderless" and beaten. In any case, "no one was now arrested without proper legal procedures".

In December 1993, one of Murdoch's veteran retainers, Paul Kelly, then editor-in-chief of The Australian, was appointed by Foreign Minister Evans to the Australia-Indonesia Institute, a body funded by the Australian government to promote the "common interests" of Canberra and the Suharto dictatorship. Kelly led a group of Australian newspaper editors to Jakarta for an audience with the mass murderer. There is a photograph of one of them bowing.

East Timor won its independence in 1999 with the blood and courage of its ordinary people. The tiny, fragile democracy was immediately subjected to a relentless campaign of bullying by the Australian government which sought to manoeuvre it out of its legal ownership of the sea bed's oil and gas revenue. To get its way, Australia refused to recognise the jurisdiction of the International Court of Justice and the Law of the Sea and unilaterally changed the maritime boundary in its own favour.

In 2006, a deal was finally signed, Mafia-style, largely on Australia's terms. Soon afterwards, Prime Minister Mari Alkitiri, a nationalist who had stood up to Canberra, was effectively deposed in what he called an "attempted coup" by "outsiders". The Australian military, which had "peace-keeping" troops in East Timor, had trained his opponents.

In the 17 years since East Timor won its independence, the Australian government has taken nearly $5 billion in oil and gas revenue - money that belongs to its impoverished neighbour.

Australia has been called America's "deputy sheriff" in the South Pacific. One man with the badge is Gareth Evans, the foreign minister filmed lifting his champagne glass to toast the theft of East Timor's natural resources. Today, Evans is a lectern-trotting zealot promoting a brand of war-mongering known as "RTP", or "Responsibility to Protect". As co-chair of a New York-based "Global Centre", he runs a US-backed lobby group that urges the "international community" to attack countries where "the Security Council rejects a proposal or fails to deal with it in a reasonable time". The man for the job, as the East Timorese might say.