Day in Court
UPDATED. Bilal Hussein, AP insurgent affairs photographer, is up for his day in court.
As Malkin notes, the AP that has been demanding legal steps would now prefer to forego them. While the AP insists the bulk of Hussein’s work was inocuous, Michelle’s got the art that wasn’t. News or propaganda? You decide. The hostage stuff is pretty revolting and suggests Hussein may have known a fair amount about criminal matters and criminal individuals. The famous shot of insurgents firing their weapons on a street corner and some of the other insurgent shots frankly look like more like setups than combat frames, which would make them a fraud on the AP and its readers, in addition to being propaganda. Wouldn’t be the first time a local stringer shafted a foreign wire service that way.
Reuters fired Adnan Hajj in the Lebanon war fauxtography scandal, where Hezbollah-friendly setups and Photoshop became a concern. Absent his status as part of the AP’s 2005 Pulitizer Prize-winning package, would the AP give a damn about Hussein? An insurgent stooge conviction would be a pretty big asterix. Had he not been scooped, might insurgent-friendly setups have been his undoing? Hard to say. Also, how might he have faired under the Anbar Awakening? All mysteries.
The Hussein tale has been complicated by reports of backpedalling on some initial military claims. There may or may not have been bomb-making materials in Hussein’s house when he was scooped, but he was not associated with them. He may or may not have been picked up in the company of al Qaeda suspects. American Journalism Review, Dec. 2006:
The military has also told the AP–and me–that Hussein was arrested in his apartment while having breakfast with a man they consider “a key al Qaeda leader” and with another known insurgent. The military has said it found weapons and bomb-making materials on the premises, but it was never more specific than that.
Editor Reid says many of the home-made bombs in Iraq are fashioned out of “common-use items, many of which can be found in the average Iraqi kitchen. I have never seen the U.S. military break down what kind of bomb-making materials this was. Was it sticks of dynamite? Was it a kitchen timer? Was it ammonia? Who knows?”
A few weeks ago, when I asked the public affairs officers at Task Force 134 to clarify the issue of the cache of weapons and the bomb-making materials, they backed off the accusation altogether. Here is their reply:
“During his capture multiple items of evidentiary value were seized by the capturing unit. Although no weapons were discovered, several items believed to be used in the construction of Improvised Explosive Devices were recovered. The ensuing investigation concluded that the suspected IED materials were not relevant to Mr. Hussein’s case.”
As for his having breakfast with terrorist types at the time of his arrest, that too may be in doubt. Horton says he believes Hussein would testify in court that other people were picked up that morning, but not in connection with him. (AP Executive Editor Kathleen) Carroll argues that, in any case, the military “doesn’t have the right to hold him indefinitely for having breakfast with people they don’t like.”
But the bomb-making and AQ companionship claims were revived last night. CNN:
The U.S. military says it has “convincing and irrefutable” evidence that an award-winning Associated Press photographer is connected to the insurgency in Iraq.
The photographer, Bilal Hussein Zaidon, faces charges in the Iraqi Central Court based on the evidence, Pentagon officials said Monday.
Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell and other U.S. military officials would not say directly what charges he faced. They referred reporters to the Iraqi court system.
Hussein, an Iraqi who lives in the western Anbar province city of Ramadi, has been held without charge by the U.S. military since April 2006, when bomb parts and insurgent propaganda were found in his house after the U.S. military asked to use it as an observation post during an operation.
Hussein was already under suspicion by the U.S. military because he arrived at terrorist attack sites so quickly that they suspected he had advance knowledge of attacks, according to Morrell.
Morrell said the reason for the delay in charging the man was that “additional evidence had come to light that the man was a media operative who had infiltrated The Associated Press.”
A little more here, LA Times:
AP officials have vigorously protested Hussein’s detention and the difficulties they have had in legally defending him. Its own investigation supported none of the military’s suspicions, the news organization has reported.
According to an AP investigation, Hussein was picked up after a bombing in Ramadi in April 2006 when he offered shelter and food to others fleeing the explosion.
Dave Tomlin, an associate general counsel for the AP, said Hussein did not personally know those fleeing, but the military linked him to them after finding them in the same home.
“There’s been lots of suspicions and rumors about who those people were, but nothing that constitutes proof,” Tomlin said.
Morrell said two others in the house were detained. One was convicted of having false identification. Morrell said Hussein was found with “insurgent propaganda,” materials for making roadside bombs and surveillance photos of military installations.
Carroll’s claim in the AJC article that AP correspondents may dine with whom they chose is an elaboration on another remark in that article:
Western news organizations have increasingly employed Iraqi stringers as the pervasive violence has made it harder for foreigners to move about safely (see “Out of Reach,” April/May). Hussein is not the only one of these stringers to be arrested by the U.S. military and accused of being in bed with insurgents. In fact, there is a pattern of such arrests. A CBS cameraman was detained for an entire year before an Iraqi court decided to free him last spring, declaring that the military had no case.
One senses here a sharp disagreement over exactly what constitutes proper journalism. The military does not define it, but in an e-mail to me a spokesperson for Detainee Operations in Iraq said Hussein had “access to insurgent activities outside of the normal scope afforded to journalists.” Another e-mail from the same office said Hussein had “crossed the line from journalistic pursuit to complicity” with the insurgents.
The AP argues that the military has no business dictating what is correct journalistic practice. “That’s our call, not theirs,” says Kathleen Carroll, the AP’s executive editor.
Actually, in wartime, it’s the military’s call, not Carroll’s. Just as in peacetime, it may be law enforcement’s call. Aiding and abetting is a crime no matter who pays your wages, and while journalists may consort with unsavory characters, they must be careful in some circumstances of the extent to which they carry their water. Having unsavory characters over to the house for breakfast is generally considered a professional no-go, though it would be a stretch to call Hussein a professional. Meanwhile, AJC 2006 used the case of CBS stringer Ameer to underscore how unfair and exaggerated military evidentiary claims can be. I’d suggest Ameer’s release instead raises the question of why Hussein, if the evidence against him is blatantly distorted and can be dismissed in the manner AJC and AP have dismissed it, is still being held and now facing trial a year later.
The AP insists its investigation has cleared Hussein, but it’s not clear how they managed that without access to whatever classified evidence the U.S. military has. The AP, as we’ve noted, insists that hanging with insurgents who were actively engaged in killing Americans, Iraqi and other foreign nationals was within the scope of Hussein’s legitimate work at a war correspondent. That’s an interesting point for historical comparison. I’m trying to remember. Did the AP, which is an American new service, after all, have photogs embedded with the Viet Cong, the North Koreans, the Nazis or the Japanese Imperial Army? I know the Nazis executed a captive AP correspondent.
Speaking of Vietnam, Surber reminds us of a VC media plant there, and wants to know why the heck the source known as Iraqi Police Capt. Jamil Hussein has dropped out of view.
Jawa reminds us that al Qaeda in Iraq is in the habit of seizing and executing Iraqi reporters and photographers. What was so special about this one?
Jawa reader claims he recognized, reported Hussein up the line in Abu Ghraib a month after he was nabbed thanks to Jawa’s Bilalwatch.
Hot Air suggests AP stop reporting on the case at all. I don’t know about that. By their own words shall we know them.
ConfYank: AP grandstanding.
Welcome, Punditeers, Surberistas, Memestreamers, etal. Good to see you. Front row seats still available for today’s show. BYO tomatoes. Sighs of relief in Baghdad, why not D.C.? Ask the Imam. All we want is one example, please. Just guessing: What might A’Jad and Juan Carlos have in common? So, have any plans for Euro-Giving?
Posted by Jules Crittenden at 10:53 pm on Monday, November 19, 2007
7 Responses to “Day in Court”
Leave a Reply
Trackback URLYou must be logged in to post a comment.
November 19th, 2007 at 11:11 pm
If the profession of journalism does not figure out how to police itself then policing will be placed upon journalism from outside sources.
As things now stand, there is zero reason to keep to the traditional protections for our journalists. Too many are active supporters of the enemy.
The sad part is, there are good, decent and honorable journalists mixed in with the tardic, moronic, deceitful and degenerates. Once the rage finally breaks and vengeance walks out to do the culling, the good, decent and honorable will be in just as much jeopardy as the scum.
November 20th, 2007 at 5:36 am
“The steps the U.S. military is now taking continue to deny Bilal his right to due process.”
We can hold his ass without trial or criminal charges FOREVER if the appropriate authority (in this case the United States Army) deems him to be a threat to our security. He hasn’t been denied his right to due process.
“The treatment of Bilal represents a miscarriage of the very justice and rule of law that the United States is claiming to help Iraq achieve…”
Crap. He’s being treated as if he was a protected civilian under the 4th Geneva Convention. Try reading it sometime.
November 20th, 2007 at 9:04 am
[...] here. The Post story on Pham Xuan An is here. Linked by Memeorandum. The Jawa Report reacts. Jules Crittenden reacts. The Power Line reacts. And Hot Air [...]
November 20th, 2007 at 12:58 pm
A public affairs officer notified the AP on Sunday that the military intends to submit a written complaint against Hussein that would bring the case into the Iraqi justice system as early as Nov. 29.
Uh oh. The Iraqi justice system. With the current prevailing attitudes in Iraq right now, that doesn’t sound promising for Mr. Hussein.
“While we are hopeful that there could be some resolution to Bilal Hussein’s long detention,
Be careful what you wish for, AP.
And by the way, it wouldn’t bother me if the military lodged a legal complain against the AP, either.
November 20th, 2007 at 6:07 pm
You know, I’m losing track of my list of “duplicitous” faux journalists. Wasn’t Mr. Hussein the photographer who mysteriously was standing on a street corner on haifa street when insurgents or Al Qaida stopped a car full of election workers and executed them in front of the camera?
Or was that the Ameer fellow?
Sorry, AP. Stringers that live with the enemy and report their propaganda are security risks. He is probably lucky that he was captured by Americans.
November 20th, 2007 at 7:40 pm
This enemy operativess handlers, editors and contacts within AP should also be arrested, tried, convicted and executed for aiding and giving comfort to a known enemy operative during a time of war, if they are American citizens.
If they are foreigners, then they should simply be hunted down and slaughtered wherever found.
November 20th, 2007 at 8:17 pm
that first of the double ss’s above was supposed to be a ‘ .