Page 3 of 5   <       >

These Satellite Images Document an Atrocity

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.

This is the next phase of the project: They're creating an endangered list of sorts, villages Amnesty thinks are threatened in Darfur and across the border in Chad, where the conflict has spread. The hope is that satellite images of these towns will generate enough media attention to provide some protection.

"We'll let the Sudanese government know that we're watching," Blätter notes. "And asking the global community to join us."

Over the past week, London-based Julie Flint has been gathering intelligence. A researcher and independent journalist who has been working on, and sometimes in, Darfur since 1992, Flint has provided most of the location information the researchers have used for this project. Flint communicates with the Washington team mostly by e-mail, and she tends to send each thought as she has it. Nelson, Blätter and Bromley are used to waking up to an inbox full of one- or two-sentence missives -- locations where Janjaweed militias have been seen massing, updates on which towns one side or the other appears to be taking an interest in, word of where attacks are likely to occur soon. For today's call, Nelson has consolidated the bits on potential attacks into one document, giving the names and locations of towns Flint thinks are at risk.

Before they begin discussing the towns, Bromley notes that each image of Sudan might cost less than he'd expected. Bromley had ordered all of the "before" and many of the "after" images of attacked villages out of DigitalGlobe's archive catalogue. But when he inquired about getting new imagery, he found out that QuickBird was booked solid over Sudan until well into summer.

Apparently, someone with deep pockets is very interested in Sudan, though whether it's government or private enterprise is impossible to know -- DigitalGlobe doesn't release customer information.

There's an upside, however: Users don't purchase the satellite images they requisition; they license them. So after an image is delivered to the original buyer, it'll go into an archive. This system has provided the historical coverage that has allowed Amnesty and AAAS to collect "before" shots.

Because someone else is directing QuickBird, Bromley had to choose another satellite, one of GeoEye's, for the new shots of Darfur. Then, suddenly, that satellite died; apparently, a small component between the satellite's sensor and its memory failed. So Bromley located a third satellite, one run out of the Netherlands Antilles by a company called ImageSat. It can capture almost the same level of detail as QuickBird, but its cameras record in black and white. Blätter and Nelson are worried that these images may not resonate with viewers as deeply as the color shots, but they're the best the team can do for now.

That's when the possibility of a price reduction appeared. From a message Bromley just received, these images of Sudan may each cost about $1,600 each, $900 less than expected. (Satellite companies don't post their rates, but the group has been paying about $2,500 a shot.) Odd -- but good -- news, because at the end of the day, this project has a budget. Blätter has $50,000, about enough for 20 shots, to spend on the threatened villages. And as the point is to let Sudan's government know that Amnesty can order more anytime, she can't use up the whole budget immediately. With this lower price, she'll be able to get more, but there's just not enough money for every village on the initial list.

"So we have to make some hard decisions," she says, beginning the discussion. Bromley's looking at his list as she talks. Like Blätter and Nelson, he hasn't slept much this week. A half-eaten Pop-Tart is pushed off to the side of his desk, and two Starbucks cups sit near his monitors.

"Kafod -- no one has gotten in since 2006," Blätter notes. In theory, at least, even oppressive governments don't want their people to starve; they often let humanitarian aid groups such as Oxfam operate where they don't welcome Amnesty or Human Rights Watch. But aid agencies are occasionally kicked out or, more often, forced to evacuate because of threats to their workers' safety. (After Doctors Without Borders released a report documenting rapes in a Darfur refugee camp in 2005, Sudan issued an arrest warrant for the group's country chief.) Aid agencies haven't been able to enter Kafod for about a year.

"I like it," Bromley says, "If we can get a current image, it can be used by humanitarian organizations."

Bromley writes "yes" next to Kafod, and the discussion moves on. Abu Sakim is a smallish settlement in North Darfur, not far from Kafod. It's under control of the Sudan Liberation Army, one of the main rebel groups, but it's just a few miles south of a Janjaweed stronghold, and militias are believed to have designs on it. Blätter points out that many people believe -- mistakenly -- that it's quiet in northern Sudan; a focus on Kafod and Abu Sakim might help change that perception. As a bonus, it looks as though the two towns might be close enough to each other to capture in a single shot.


<          3           >


More From The Washington Post Magazine

[Post Hunt]

Post Hunt

See the results from our crazy, brain-teasing game.

[Date Lab]

Date Lab

We set up two local singles on a blind date.

[D.C. 1791 to Today]

Explore History

3-D models show the evolution of Washington landmarks.

© 2007 The Washington Post Company