Have your say! "Free Speech" or Muslim bashing? Do you support Iraq troop withdrawal? Iran invasion?
  • Please read our posting policy before adding a comment
  • Target areas: Operation "Anyone But Labour" 2006
  • Friday, April 29, 2005

    Rumsfeld demands reporters ignore First Amendment

    From Military Reporters & Editors, April 27, 2005 :

    A group of journalism organizations led by Military Reporters & Editors on April 27 asked Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld to rescind restrictions placed on reporters covering the trial of Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar at Fort Bragg, N.C.

    MRE officials stated the organization is prepared to go to court to force an end to the military's decision in this case to require journalists to sign agreements that limit their ability to perform their jobs under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. The groups also asked the Defense Department to establish a policy forbidding such actions in the future.

    In a letter to Donald Rumsfeld, MRE outlines its "concerns about restrictions imposed in Fort Bragg court martial of Army Sgt. Hasan Akbar.":

    The most troublesome is an "agreement" that reporters were required to sign before gaining access to the proceedings, which includes a pledge to not interview soldiers at Fort Bragg about the case or ask legal advisors in the media room to speculate on the outcome. To ensure compliance with the agreement, reporters were escorted everywhere while on base and some were monitored as they went to the restroom. The agreement and the Army's actions under it are an affront to the First Amendment rights of free speech and press.

    ...

    We understand the right of access is not absolute. When presented with an appropriate compelling interest a judge can, upon notice to the public and an opportunity to be heard, order limited closure of a courtroom. This can be done only after finding no reasonable alternative will safeguard that interest and after providing for a narrow closure based on specific findings that can be reviewed on appeal.

    The purported "agreement" does not meet that test. No public hearing was held, no showing was made and no judicial findings were rendered to justify press restrictions of any sort. We therefore implore you to immediately renounce the constraints this document places on the press, so that we are not forced to bring this issue to a court's attention.

    Reporter Jeff Schogol of The Express Times outlines some of the conditions of his agreement:

    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.

    It seems the Donald Rumsfeld of 1966 would disagree with the actions of his modern counterpart:

    "Mr. Speaker, a recent speech by Presidential Aid Bill D. Moyers admonished the Nation's newsmen to appreciate that only the 'purest motives' govern the actions and statements of the executive branch of the Federal Government. Such advice, if heeded, would be heeded by the naïve and nondiscriminating. Citizens and the press will continue to question, to investigate, to doubt, and to seek the truth."

    3 Comments:

    At 4/29/2005 06:26:00 am, Blogger John Hedtke said...

    As one citizen of the United States, let me say that not everyone in this country thinks Bush is a good idea. I am profoundly embarrassed by the damage, the terror, and the evil that this idiotic little man and his fascist cronies are causing in the US and throughout the world in pursuit of... I have no idea what. To create massive terror in an excuse to stop it is not what the United States should be about, but that's what we seem to have at the moment. I'm sorry.

     
    At 4/29/2005 06:27:00 am, Anonymous Anonymous said...

    Oh well, the fragger got death anyway.

     
    At 4/29/2005 06:44:00 am, Blogger DJEB said...

    Anon, "the fragger" is not the point. The point is the First Amendment and freedom of access to information that is essential in a so-called free state.

     

    Post a Comment

    << Home