Regional
Prosecution seeks life sentence for terror suspect Rusesabagina
Prosecutors on June 17 asked the
court in Rwandan capital Kigali to hand a life sentence to terror suspect Paul
Rusesabagina, who is charged with nine counts including forming an illegal
armed group and financing terror activities. Rusesabagina is the founding
President of MRCD-FLN, a terrorist group that killed civilians in a series of
attacks in different parts of Rwanda in 2018 and 2019.
Two days earlier, on June 15, an
article in a Rwandan daily detailed how a small newsroom in Texas, USA, exposed
mainstream Western media's complicity in not only helping promote anti-Rwanda
propaganda but also their sustained efforts to defend terrorists working to
cause bloodshed.
Read the full article below:
It
took a small television station in Texas to expose Rusesabagina's fraud, The
New York Times Complicity
For the last few months, The New
York Times has been churning out some of the most outrageous falsehoods and
anti-Rwanda propaganda, then early this month a little-known television station
in San Antonio, Texas put the publication to shame after fact-checking the
latest false and malicious allegations against the government of Rwanda.
On June 5, 2021, The New York Times
published a story accusing authorities in Kigali of denying food and medicine,
Paul Rusesabagina an inmate on trial on charges of terrorism. The entire
fiction is based on information provided by Mr Rusesabagina's family who reside
in San Antonio, Texas.
Indeed, the allegations aren't dissimilar to the familiar smear that the family and their foreign sponsors have been channelling through that newspaper and other Western media outlets since August 2020, when he was arrested and arraigned in court. Indeed, within the news media the family and supporters have identified individual journalists who are routinely doing the hatchet job.
The New York Times has a
full-fledged bureau in San Antonio, whose chief happens to be a criminal
justice reporter. It's true media houses assign certain court stories to
particular reporters for the duration of the trial. In this case,
though, it wasn't about the trial which would have required someone who has
been covering the case to do a follow-up. Like politics, news is local and when
people have a story they want published, they reach out to their local
reporter. Therefore, since the story was initiated and relayed by people
in San Antonio, Rusesabagina's family could easily have taken their story to
the New York Times criminal justice reporter in their hometown.
Instead, what comes across as a
paid-for advertisement regurgitating all kinds of lies which Rusesabagina's
family and other anti-Rwanda groups have been putting out was dispatched by
Abdi Latif Dahir, the newspaper's reporter in Nairobi. Clearly, he forwarded to
his editors a handout from an advocacy group and individuals who continue to
treat Rusesabagina as their meal ticket.
Yet, no editor in the New York Times
newsroom would sign off on such a lop-sided story if it were written about the
United States government. If it ever landed on their desk, they would
first check with Washington. However, like all Western news media seeking to
reinforce certain stereotypes of what their audiences have been conditioned to
expect, the New York Times makes no effort to find out what Kigali's position
is with regard to the allegations. Nor does it seek the views of any third
party that has interest in Rusesabagina's case.
While mainstream Western media
outlets have constantly helped promote the anti-Rwanda narrative, there have
been cases where relatively small players have tried to look beyond what such
sources as Rusesabagina's family and their allies were peddling. KSAT12
News, a small television station in San Antonio had seen the statement put out
by Rusesabagina's family and their foreign backers, that contained the
allegations and set out to work on the story.
Not only did the KSAT 12 News quote
a statement released by Rwanda Correctional Services, dismissing the
allegations, it also reached out to what it deemed a "reliable" third
party to establish the truth. Where the New York Times chose to publish the
false claims without asking questions, the television station spoke to the State
Department seeking clarification.
Washington promptly refuted the
lies, telling the news station that the US ``Embassy in Kigali spoke with
Rwandan authorities, as well as Belgian diplomats and Rusesabagina's lawyers,
who have stated that Rusesabagina continues to have access to food, water and
medication".
The State Department Spokesperson
went on to confirm that the government of Rwanda "continues to provide
access to Mr Rusesabagina to Embassy officials" The New York Times is a
much more powerful media organisation than the small television station in San
Antonio, and if its editors had sought the US government statement on the
allegations, the State Department would have responded in quick order. The
newspaper publication, however, has elected to treat Rwanda by different rules
and wasn't going to verify whatever smear Rusesabagina's family was handing it
to help spread against the country.
It's not the first time a small
newsroom has exposed mainstream Western media's complicity in not only helping
promote anti-Rwanda propaganda but also their sustained efforts to defend
terrorists who have been working to cause bloodshed in the country, once the
law catches up with them.
Last year, Rene Mugenzi, a prominent
member of the Rwanda National Congress (RNC) terrorist organization, was
convicted and handed a 27-months prison sentence by a United Kingdom (UK) court
after he stole church money amounting to 220,000 pounds.
Then Mugenzi who, for years, had
been portraying himself as "human rights activist", with help of the
news media in the UK, including the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC),
through his lawyers secured a court injunction ordering the news media not to
report on the case. He claimed his life would be in danger because Rwanda was
purportedly out to get him.
The British media which were
complicit in building Mugenzi's fake profile conveniently chose not to
challenge the gag order, as they tried to disassociate themselves from a
criminal they helped prop up, and whose false allegations against Rwanda they
had willingly promoted.
Similar to the small television station in San Antonio, Texas which in this
case did what newsrooms are supposed to do, and in the process exposed the
fraud that Rusesabagina's family and their supporters have been perpetrating on
the international community, it took a small circulation publication, the Daily
Press in Norfolk, UK to have Mugenzi's court order revoked, exposing him for
the criminal that he is, after its reporters' investigations revealed that his
claims that he feared for his personal were safety were a pack of lies he had
been using to game the British system.
Saource: https://www.newtimes.co.rw/