by Graydon Gordian, Medill News Service on 05/13/10
On the afternoon of Thursday, May 6, the Toronto Star, Canwest News Service, The Globe and Mail and The Miami Herald all received a letter from Marine Col. David Lapan, director of press operations for the Department of Defense.
“I am writing to inform you that reporters from your news organizations violated established and agreed-upon ground rules governing reporting on Military Commissions proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” the letter read. “As a result of these violations, these individual reporters are barred from
returning to cover future Military Commissions proceedings.”
The violation: Reporting the name of “interrogator #1,” a former interrogator at Bagram Air Base in Afghanistan whose identity was protected by a court order during their coverage of the pretrial hearings of 23-year-old Guantanamo detainee and Canadian citizen Omar Khadr.
The reporters, Michelle Shephard of the Toronto Star, Steven Edwards of Canwest News Service, Paul Koring of The Globe and Mail, and Carol Rosenberg of The Miami Herald, had been admonished by Col. Patrick Parrish, the presiding judge, the previous day for not respecting the anonymity of classified witnesses. They printed the interrogator’s name nonetheless. The interrogator had conducted an on-the-record interview with Shephard regarding his intention to testify in the Khadr case two years earlier.
It’s worth mentioning that these aren’t just any old reporters. Collectively the four may have spent more time covering the military commissions than the rest of the two dozen other reporters who were in Guantanamo for the Khadr hearings combined. Rosenberg was one of the first reporters to travel to Guantanamo when the detention facility was opened. Shephard wrote the book on the life and case of Omar Khadr, literally.
Did the Department of Defense make the correct decision by banning these four reporters? The four reporters and their respective news organizations don’t believe so. The Toronto Star, Canwest News Service and The Miami Herald have hired an attorney, David A. Schulz, as they appeal the decision, while The Globe and Mail will request that the ban be lifted separately.
The “appellate process” is not a formal one because the decision to ban the four reporters from covering the hearings was not a ruling by the judge. Their appeal is merely a request that the Department of Defense reconsider its decision.
“This is ridiculous and an unfair ban and the Toronto Star will object strongly to it,” said Editor Michael Cooke in an article in the Star the day the ban was announced. Cooke, as well as Shephard and Rosenberg, declined to comment further when contacted because their appeal is pending.
The human rights groups that have sent observers to the commission proceedings felt the need to show no such reservation.
“We consider that this move by the Department of Defense not only runs counter to the U.S. administration’s stated commitment to transparency in government, but will also bring the military commissions into further disrepute, internationally and within the United States,” read a letter co-signed by the American Civil Liberties Union, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First and Amnesty International. The letter was addressed to Douglas Wilson, assistant secretary of defense for public affairs.
According to Lapan, however, the reason for the ban is not to prevent transparency or even necessarily to protect “interrogator #1.” Lapan said he concerned that the report might have a “chilling effect” on future witnesses who have asked for anonymity, discouraging them from cooperating out of fear that they might have their names revealed.
The Defense Department has yet to announce any decisions regarding the reporters’ appeal.
While Lapan’s concern about the chilling effect on witnesses may be valid, the bigger concern is the chilling effect the ban will have on reporters. Reporters in Guantanamo already have plenty of impediments to uncovering the truth.
