A United Nations war-crimes tribunal has rejected as "utterly unfounded" the refusal by an American journalist to testify about an interview with a suspected war criminal that was published in The Washington Post.
A panel of three U.N. judges dismissed the motion on behalf of retired reporter Jonathan C. Randal in which his publication argued that compelling journalists to testify could endanger their lives and the lives of sources.
The decision paves the way for the court to order that Randal appear in The Hague. Although the tribunal cannot physically force him to testify, its orders are binding under international law. It could request that authorities in France, where Randal lives, assist in carrying out the order.
The Post quoted its managing editor, Steve Coll, as saying yesterday that "the last couple of years have made clearer than ever how hard is the work of independent correspondents in combat zones where many combatants are not formally aligned with any government and suspicious of the motives of the media."
Coll expressed concern that warring parties would view journalists "as instruments of some faraway court or power and deal with them as such" if such subpoenas were allowed, the Post said.
Keep in mind that:
quote:The majority of journalists who died in the line of duty during the last decade were killed in direct reprisal for their reporting, not while covering combat, according to a study released Thursday by the Committee to Protect Journalists.
Of the 389 journalists killed between 1992 and 2001, 62 of them, or 16%, died in cross fire, while 298, or 77%, were targeted for their work, the New York-based group found.
[ June 18, 2002, 14:53: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
If you honestly believe that the reason the US Government opposes international courts is that they have a fervent wish to protect safety and integrity of the world's journalists, then you're even stupider than I thought. Like everyone from the CIA on down hasn't been trying to find out where Al-Jazeera was getting all their Bin Laden videos from.
posted
The point, since you don't seem to get it, is that this court has ruled against what many in the US consider a fundamental right of journalists not to be forced to testify about or to reveal their sources.
It's generally considered a first amendment right, something most of us take fairly seriously and dislike seeing considered 'utterly unfounded.'
Whether or not it is THE reason, it is a GOOD reason.
quote:Like everyone from the CIA on down hasn't been trying to find out where Al-Jazeera was getting all their Bin Laden videos from.
A good point, but if the US were to be shown to be using the same tactics that the UN court is using to get that information, people much like yourself would no doubt be throwing screaming hissy fits.
[ June 18, 2002, 16:05: Message edited by: First of Two ]
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Shut the hell up Lee! You don't know what you're talking about. We Americans will let NOTHING stand in our way of that First Amendment. Unless you read other threads in this flameboard, in which case you'll learn it doesn't really matter if the President's safety is threatened. But see Lee, you British don't understand! You don't understand fundamental values of freedom of the press. Well, unless the military is involved, the Smith Act and all. But, aside from that, shut up you Brit you don't know! This is one of our many reasons to not be a part of the international court. That and you stupid Europeans don't understand our need to mine the harbours of tiny countries that pose no threat to us! We can't have your morals, so much lower than our's, stopping us. And you stupid British don't even understand the need to murder, in cold blood, your own citizens for doing the same thing! Stupid stupid British!!!
(as a disclaimer, for any who don't quite grasp sarcasm, the preceding including JUST a little bit of it - let's call it satire)
-------------------- "Don't leave the ladies crying cause the story's sad" Joe Walsh
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Actually, it's neither. But don't let that stop you.
So, what color on the political spectrum are you THIS time around, oh former-ardent-states-rightist-suddenly-turned-neo-Trotskyist ?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I'm apparently missing the bit that says "and journalists don't have to tell anyone where they get their information". If that's what "freedom...of the press" means, then shouldn't "freedom of speech" mean that anyone who speaks doesn't have to testify, either?
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Daniel has us bang to rights. I'd like to plead guilty and throw myself on the mercy of the court, and ask that filling the Titanic with cute cuddly Irish peasants, and then deliberately running it into an iceberg, into consideration.
Why, you know, if the US actually supported the actions of the War-Crimes Tribunal, you might actually be able to get us Brits for atrocities committed during your War of Independence. 8)
posted
Let me put it in a nicer, less confrontational manner...
I'd like to see specific examples of the proposed ICC's (International Criminal Court's) boundaries when it comes to the protection of individual rights.
I have been given the impression that some of its boundaries are in conflict with the boundaries of the rights afforded to citizens of the USA under the Constitution and derived Supreme Court decisions.
I could be mistaken, and would appreciate clarification.
I am not in favor of further restrictions on the constitutional individual rights of citizens of the USA, therefore I cannot support any organization or governing body which would do so.
Specific refence to the bodies of laws which would be cited by the ICC in tendering its decisions would be helpful.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
So an American citizen can do whatever he or she likes to anyone, anywhere in the world, and once back in the USA can play the court system to its full obstructionist best? That would mean no American can ever be held guilty of committing war crimes.
posted
Case law, as it seems, should come from the various member nation/states.... which will conflict with one anothers... Which will set the highest precedent? How will this determination be made???
-------------------- "You are a terrible human, Ritten." Magnus "Urgh, you are a sick sick person..." Austin Powers A leek too, pretty much a negi.....
Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I certainly understand the question of jurisdiction, and the problem with the fact that some rights under the Constitution may not jibe with the ICC. It's a valid conflict.
However, you also have to consider that war crimes tribunals have been an accepted function in response to certain acts of "excess" that are committed in wartime. What's the difference between certain Nazi acts (I'm not referring to the Holocaust, but to smaller crimes) and incidents involving the deaths of large numbers of civilians in, say, Vietnam or Korea?
Did the US get to hold a tribunal after WWII simply because they were the winners? By extension, are we unwilling to potentially lose face by admitting to mistakes by individual soldiers?
Yes, incidents like the ones I alluded to in Vietnam or Korea are quite a bit different from the organized extermination in the Holocaust, but the deaths of large numbers of civilians or helpless prisoners is something that still deserves to be investigated. And in an international conflict, perhaps a world court is the best place to hold such investigations.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Vogon Poet: So an American citizen can do whatever he or she likes to anyone, anywhere in the world, and once back in the USA can play the court system to its full obstructionist best? That would mean no American can ever be held guilty of committing war crimes.
Ta-da!
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
