17/04/2005
Permission to cover Akbar case means playing by rules.
By JEFF SCHOGOL
The Express-Times
FORT BRAGG, N.C. -- When soldiers go on the rifle range, they are told not to fire too far to the left or right, for safety reasons, says Fort Bragg spokesman Maj. Richard T. Patterson. And when journalists come to Fort Bragg, they also must agree to a series of ground rules that spell out the limits of media access, for safety reasons, Patterson says. "We don't have things to hide," Patterson explains. He says the Army wants the American public to see the military's fair and impartial justice system, in which those on trial enjoy more rights at an Article 32 hearing than at the civilian equivalent of a grand jury. But the Army cannot talk about some topics, like security, and hence the ground rules. For the court martial of Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar, accused of killing Army Capt. Christopher Scott Seifert and an Air Force officer, I had to agree to 14 such ground rules, including: I can't talk to any soldiers or civilians on the base without permission. I can be searched at any time. I can't ask the legal adviser provided to the media to speculate on how evidence or testimony might affect the trial's outcome. I have to be escorted everywhere I go on Fort Bragg. When I go to the men's room, my military escort waits patiently outside. Breaking the rules means I will no longer cover the court martial. Patterson says the restrictions are designed to provide an impartial trial for Akbar while keeping people informed about the court martial. "This is not, in my mind, about allowing the media to cover a trial. This is about educating the American public about military trials, and in this particular case about the United States vs. Sgt. Akbar," he says. Since I have not encountered such restrictions in the civilian world, I decided to ask around to see if these ground rules are the norm in the military justice system. Lt. Col. Pamela L. Hart of Army Public Affairs says they are, except for the being escorted to the men's room thing. "I would trust you enough to do what you have to do," she says. Eugene Fidell, a lawyer who specializes in military law, said he has never heard of restrictions against talking to soldiers. "That strikes me as crazy," he said. Fidell represented The Denver Post in its lawsuit after the government threw the newspaper out of the trial for several soldiers accused of killing an Iraqi general. He said he brought the investigation to a halt and got the reporters back in the courtroom. He said Fort Bragg is a "garden variety" base, not Guantanamo Bay, and thus the rule against talking to soldiers and civilians without permission "seems like overkill and security concerns run amok." Fidell recommended filing a complaint. Trista Tallton, a military affairs reporter in Wilmington, N.C., says she ran into similar restrictions when she covered the court martial of a Marine accused of accidentally killing several people when his plane clipped the wires of a cable car in Italy. "I think some of it is they want to keep the media under control," she says. Tallton says she believes the military -- under the guise of homeland security -- has given reporters less and less access since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. For an upcoming court martial of a Marine accused of killing two Iraqis, the military wants to put the media in a satellite viewing room instead of the courtroom, she says. "Homeland security for me has opened this black hole about what we're getting access to in the future because it's so easy to say it's a matter of national security, homeland security, and you're not going to get access to it," she says. Unlike the civilian court system, the Uniform Code of Military Justice has no case law that says reporters have an absolute First Amendment right to attend military proceedings, says Lucy Dalglish, executive director of The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, a nonprofit group that provides legal advice to journalists. Dalglish says military courts are supposed to be open and tend to look to precedents in the civilian court system on questions of constitutional rights. But even some civilian courts are using homeland security as a way to close proceedings, she said. In one case, a man arrested for an immigration violation was tried in secret all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, she says. The New Jersey Press Association says it does not know of any cases in the state in which homeland security was used as a reason to exclude media from courtrooms. Closing a courtroom in the state requires holding a public hearing in which all sides must be heard on the pros and cons of keeping people out of the proceedings, the press association says. Teri Henning, of the Pennsylvania Press Association, says she also has not heard of courts in the state being closed to the public for reasons of homeland security. Patterson says it is important to release information that the media can publish to inform people who want to know what is going on but cannot attend the proceedings. He says he teaches his soldiers to engage reporters instead of running away from them. Patterson says most soldiers he's talked with have felt the media leaves the Army's side of the story out of their reports, yet few soldiers are willing to talk to reporters. Patterson says he advises the soldiers that if they don't tell reporters their side of the story, who will? "As long as the press, or the media, tells both sides of the story, then what I have done as a PAO (public affairs officer) is a success," he says.
SOURCE: Express Times |
