Miami Herald
May 13, 2010
By Frances Robles
Arguing that a Pentagon order banning four journalists from covering military commissions at Guantánamo Bay was illegal and unconstitutional, The Miami Herald and two Canadian news outlets appealed on Wednesday.
While covering a hearing last week to determine the admissibility of confessions made by Canadian detainee Omar Khadr, four journalists from The Herald, the Toronto Star, the Globe and Mail and CanWest Newspapers of Canada printed the name of a witness who had been identified at the hearing as “Interrogator No. 1.”
Military rules prohibit the publication of “protected” information, so the Pentagon banned the four reporters, including Herald correspondent Carol Rosenberg, who has covered the Guantánamo base for nearly a decade.
The reporters believed the media ground rules did not apply, because the witness in question went public years ago and his name is available on the Internet, according to the appeal.
“The order is mistaken, the remedy is too severe, and the expulsion should be rescinded,” attorney David A. Schulz wrote in the appeal to the Pentagon.
Schulz represents The Herald, CanWest and the Toronto Star in the matter.
In a letter to Bryan Whitman, deputy assistant secretary of defense for media operations, Schulz said the law that created the military commissions leaves such decisions up to a judge.
Further, the reporters did not obtain the name of the witness at the hearing, and it serves no military purpose to ban someone from publishing information that’s already public, Schulz argued.
“Our position remains unchanged: We did not violate any of the court rules for being at Guantánamo,” said Miami Herald Managing Editor Aminda Marques Gonzalez. “I feel confident that once they review the facts that they are going to come to the same conclusion and reverse the order.”
Whitman declined to comment.
“This is a matter between the management of the news organizations” and the Pentagon, Whitman said. “While we are in discussions on that, I don’t think it’s appropriate to get into any details.”
Last week, Pentagon officials said it didn’t matter that Interrogator No. 1’s name was already widely known: Reporters covering the hearings in Guantánamo should not have identified him by name as being Interrogator No. 1.
In its order Thursday, the Pentagon said the papers could continue covering the commissions, but with other reporters.
Rosenberg has covered all the commissions, the Toronto Star’s Michelle Shephard has published a book about the case in question, and Steven Edwards of the CanWest News Service has written more than 200 articles on the Khadr case alone.
Barring them, Schulz said, unfairly deprives the papers of their foremost experts on Guantánamo.
“Carol is one of the longest-running, most knowledgeable reporters on Gitmo anywhere in the country,” Marques Gonzalez said.
“Why would we want to lose such a valuable asset who has years and years of knowledge?”
Copyright 2010 Miami Herald Media Company
One Comment
It’s very clear why the government does not want these names published. The interrogators have gone public themselves in an attempt to clear their names so it doesn’t appear to be for their protection. Both who testified were only 2 of 27 persons named in the investigation into murder and torture at Bagram shortly before Khadr was transferred from there to Gtmo. No one person could be charged with murder because responsibility for the abuse was so widespread, said prosecutors. See Wikipedia on Omar Khadr. It mentions the interrogators and their names link to the case.
The government’s own report on that investigation and the US Senate Armed Services Committee report on detainee treatment indicate that such actions were not the work of “a few bad apples” but inevitable excesses due to a inhumane system involving routine abuse approved at the highest levels, along with confusing instructions. And this applies to Bagram, Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib.
Interrogator No. 2 appeared in the documentary, “Taxi to the Dark Side” which is consistent with the government’s own information. These soldiers were also victims of the abusive system and they are made scapegoats for it while those with greater responsibility are excused.
Government authorities don’t want people “connecting the dots”. Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independant was at Guantanamo for the hearings. He says other reporters also mentioned the name, but the four reporters who had the most knowledge of this case, which has been going on for years, were banned. He also said they were valuable resources for the other reporters.
It’s highly ironic that a fifteen year old who fought in war almost entirely as a result of his father’s beliefs, causes and decisions has been tormented for years and charged with war crimes many legal experts consider invalid. See the article on this subject by US military expert, Lt. Col. David Frakt at the Huffington Post.
Thanks to you and all the reporters who write about this case including the four who were banned.
Comments are closed.