Journalist Detained for Reporting
It is becoming less unusual to hear of American journalists abroad who are detained, kidnapped or even killed in the line of duty. But for local journalists across Africa, Asia and the Mideast, kidnapping, detentions and threats to their families are disturbingly familiar.
Journalists from these places assume a target on their backs the moment they pick up a pen, and conduct their work dodging the scopes of local mafias, corrupt officials -- and now, the U.S. government.
On Oct. 26 of last year, a 22-year-old Afghani journalist named Jawed Ahmad, working for Canadian Television, was arrested in his own country by the U.S. military. He was called to the Kandahar Airport, purportedly by a Canadian Television colleague (none reported contacting him that day), and promptly detained by American forces.
He has been held without charges or trial for the past eight months in the detention center at Bagram Air Force Base, just north of Kabul. He is one of 12 journalists detained by U.S. forces in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2004, according the Paris-based press freedom group, Reporters Without Borders.
The trend is not only potentially disruptive to efforts to promote democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan, but also may be illegal, particularly in the light of a recent Guantanamo ruling that held at least one offshore detention center accountable to the U.S. Constitution.
That's why the Stanford Law School International Human Rights Clinic has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Ahmad against the U.S. government. Clinic project leader and attorney Barbara Olshansky said that Ahmad committed no crime, and that his detention is a threat to both the rule of law, and to free speech.
"In the United States, we believe that freedom of the press is an essential component of our democracy, but it appears that under military order, the U.S. government is detaining foreign journalists without basis and without due process," Olshansky said. "That runs afoul of our beliefs and the law. It also interferes with our ability as citizens to get uncensored press reports from combat zones."
The Stanford Human Rights Clinic is petitioning for Ahmad's right to a fair trial.
Olshansky, who has been litigating Guantanamo cases since their inception, said the Bagram detention center is an even "darker, larger black hole than Guantanamo." Prisoners there report torture and beatings, she said.
Jawed Ahmad's brother, Siddique Amhad, fears that the journalist has been mistreated. Following a videoconference arranged by the International Committee of the Red Cross in January, Siddique said his brother had lost weight, had a broken tooth and appeared as though he had been beaten.
According to Siddique, Ahmad said the military told him he was detained for having Taliban contacts in his phone.
It is impossible to know for certain why Ahmad is in prison. He has not been charged with any wrongdoing and the U.S. Justice Department is unwilling to comment on the case.
Ahmad and his brother are well-known among journalists, according to colleagues. Carlotta Gall, the Afghanistan and Pakistan bureau chief for the New York Times, has worked alongside Ahmad, and she told the Committee to Protect Journalists that he had nothing more than other journalists by way of contacts with the Taliban.
"Speaking with combatants in an asymmetrical theatre of war is absolutely legitimate," said Bob Dietz of the Committee to Protect Journalists. "Journalists seek out all sides. I am sure that Canadian Television would have demanded reporting from all sides."
If journalists in war zones must now fear indefinite detention by the U.S. military for routine reporting on an enemy, then there is a fundamental and crucial departure from both the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions in the manner in which the United States is perpetrating the war on terrorism.
"It is not illegal under U.S. law to have contacts with an enemy. Reporters need it to have a story; that's how the news works," Olshansky said.
In the Ahmad case, the Justice Department is expected to invoke a military order issued by President Bush two months after 9/11, authorizing the military to detain, indefinitely, any person who has engaged in or conspired to commit acts of international terrorism.
"The Department of Justice can be heard with great empathy that they are doing this to protect our troops and win this war," said Dietz. "But within those parameters, they have to find a way not to abuse local journalists."
Among the chief worries for Ahmad's family is that he could be held indefinitely. And in fact, they have reason to be concerned.
Bilal Hussein, a Pulitzer Prize-winning photographer for the Associated Press, was held by the U.S. military for two years before being released in April without charges. And Al Jazeera cameraman Sami al-Haj was held without charges by the U.S. military for five years at Guantanamo.
Journalists working in failed states, amid war or widespread poverty and corruption, regularly endure low wages, threats on their lives and families, arbitrary arrest and imprisonment by rogue governments as a condition of their profession. Eighty-five percent of journalist killed abroad are local reporters, and rarely are their deaths investigated, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.
"They do it because they have bought in to the concept of journalism and free speech - they understand it intuitively," said Deitz.
The petition filed by the Stanford Law School International Human Rights Clinic on Ahmad's behalf may force the U.S. government to reveal the nature of the charge against him. Without the government presenting at least an allegation of illegal or hostile conduct, a seasoned journalist might say that Ahmad was only doing a reporter's job well in contacting the enemy. A more cynical observer might conclude that he has been detained for committing an act of journalism.
Anna Sussman is a journalist who has reported from the United States, Africa and Asia.
© 2008 San Francisco Chronicle
Delicious
Digg
StumbleUpon
Newsvine
Facebook
Google
Yahoo
Technorati
14 Comments so far
Show AllIt's because those pesky un-embedded journalists insist on telling the truth about the US war of terror. That's why the US 'disappears' them. Now which "Canadian Television" Was Mr. Ahmad working for? Oh it's CTV... owned by Bell Globemedia... I wonder if they have anything to say about Mr. Ahmad's abductions... let's see....
Oh surprise, surprise... not a peep... http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/HTMLTemplate/!ctv/Search/?query=Jawed%20Ahmad
First the middle east reporters, next investigative reporters residing in the USA. How many, I wonder, have been imprisoned or disappeared. We never get the true story of just what's going on in Iraq, and I hate to wonder just how many news reports have been deleted or withheld in our country alone. Why in the world did Congress allow Bush to strip our habeus corpus in the first place. I complained to my representative but never got a reply. Insidious,illegal, corrupt, and villainous, that's our new governemtn led by this criminal.
Just a thought, but wouldn't he be a fairly lousy journalist if he didn't have a few of these numbers? I would certainly think our journalists have a few.
The military could be practicing journalism suppression before bringing back to US,
Sequestering journalists in jails.
"Free Speech" zones in the U.S.
No pictures allowed of coffins returning from Iraq/Afghanistan.
Soon we'll be completely deaf, blind and mute even under our own Constitution.
1. Proceed with impeachment hearings
2. Return the freedoms we have lost under the Bush regime
I note that he was working for Canadian Television. And what has Canadian Television done about the his plight? Is this how Canada treats its employees? Maybe it is because the Canadian government is embroiled in partaking in this set of US war crimes, it seems to have forgotten about law and due process too. The Canadian Television has not protested, nor broadcast news or investigations of the treatment of its own reporters. That really stinks. For the US it is just par for the war crime course. I wouldn't be surprised if the US managed to disappear Jawed Ahmad permanently, or make sure he is turned into a non-functioning human being.
Kudos to the Stanford folks and all the lawyers and law students who are pressing forward with these cases. They give me hope that the rule of law may yet be resuscitated.
BTW, doesn't the habeas ruling apply to Bagram as well as Guantanamo? Hope so!
Why can't Congress ( or OUR truly patriotic military ) also"invoke a military order issued by President Bush two months after 9/11, authorizing the military to detain, indefinitely, any person who has engaged in or conspired to commit acts of international terrorism."To end similarly, the terrorist producing War in Iraq -- and lock up bu$h!t and darth_dickster ?
Why isn't every major Media organization in the U.S. filing a formal objection in this case? Including what remains of the American Newspaper Guild.
-30-
To be honest, I'm not as worried about the "embargo"ing of a couple of stories a year as I am of the manipulating what news we get that tells a completely different story than the real one.
McCain's knowledge of the events in Iraq being so WRONG that CBS news decided they would edit his response so he wouldn't look like a complete moron.
They really ought to loose their license to broadcast for that one.
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=64291§ionid=3510203
US repression of news reporters can only be expected to increase as the reality of what goes on diverges from what the US wants us to believe is going on. It is urgent to find some way to enable reliable on-the-ground reportage from those countries without endangering the reporters themselves. The technology exists so what is needed is organisation.
-"The trend is not only potentially disruptive to efforts to promote democracy"
When did "efforts to promote democracy start? I must have overslept.
"If journalists in war zones must now fear indefinite detention by the U.S. military for routine reporting on an enemy, then there is a fundamental and crucial departure from both the U.S. Constitution and the Geneva Conventions in the manner in which the United States is perpetrating the war on terrorism."
You think?
-"It is not illegal under U.S. law to have contacts with an enemy. Reporters need it to have a story; that's how the news works," Olshansky said."
Ahhhh…That is how NEWS works. What do I think of American news? I think it would be a good idea.
On that note, did you hear the latest? Your representatives in congress are discussing the removal of Iranian tv channels from the US. Don't worry. You've got Fox and CNN. They would tell you if anything important is happening wouldn't they? Well they might embargo a few stories for a year in case the information might sway voters in an election but that's ok isn't it?
"Media criticism does exist in America. But by and large, it is not citizen-based criticism designed to make media a better source of information in a democracy. Instead, it is a cynical manipulation of the discourse designed to silence even the mildest dissent from the conservative, militantly pro-corporate dogma that has come to pass for news in an era when "reporters" brag about the size of their American-flag lapel pins."
Robert McChesney and John Nichols