Posted on 11/25/2007 6:05:11 AM PST by ricks_place
NEW YORK (AP) - The U.S. military's plan to seek a criminal case against an Associated Press photographer in Iraq without disclosing the charges or evidence against him makes a mockery of American democratic principles, AP President and CEO Tom Curley said Saturday. "This is a poor example—and not the first of its kind—of the way our government honors the democratic principles and values it says it wants to share with the Iraqi people," Curley said in a column in The Washington Post.
The U.S. military notified the AP last weekend that it intended to submit a complaint against Bilal Hussein that would bring the case into the Iraqi justice system as early as Nov. 29.
Military officials have alleged that Hussein, 36, had links to terrorist groups but are refusing to disclose what evidence or accusations would be presented.
Previously, the military suggested an array of possible lines of investigation, including claims that Hussein offered to provide false identification to a sniper seeking to evade U.S.-led forces, that he possessed bomb-making equipment, and that he took photographs that were synchronized with insurgent blasts.
Hussein, a native of Fallujah, was detained in Ramadi on April 12, 2006.
"We believe Bilal's crime was taking photographs the U.S. government did not want its citizens to see. That he was part of a team of AP photographers who had just won a Pulitzer Prize for work in Iraq may have made Bilal even more of a marked man," Curley wrote.
Hussein was part of the AP's Pulitzer Prize-winning photo team in 2005.
A U.S. military spokesman in Iraq said Saturday that Curley's column reflected a "fundamental misunderstanding of the Iraqi court system as well as the detainee process."
Maj. Bradford Leighton said that Hussein's detention without charge was legal under a United Nations mandate, and explained that the case would proceed differently than it would in the U.S. because the Iraqi system follows different procedures and rules about disclosing evidence.
"It's not like our system," said Leighton. "The evidence is presented to a judge and the judge makes the decision whether the case goes forward."
Leighton said that if the first judge decides there is a strong case, he will send it to a three-judge panel for the trial.
An AP investigation of the case compiled last spring and made public Wednesday concluded that the series of accusations against Hussein do not hold up to scrutiny.
Curley said the military has refused to answer questions from Hussein's attorney, former federal prosecutor Paul Gardephe, since announcing its intentions to seek a case against him. The military would not even share the exact date of the hearing, Curley said.
"How is Gardephe to defend Bilal? This affair makes a mockery of the democratic principles of justice and the rule of law that the United States says it is trying to help Iraq establish," Curley said.
The AP is not a sponsor of terror. They are terrorists. They hire them, they support them, they encourage them, they share their goals. They are one and the same. Tom Curley is no different than the hooded swine who cuts off the head of an innocent victim.
How about the US Military just say “We refuse to reveal our sources...” hehe...
No wonder AP has become so totally political corrupted with stooges like Tom Curley running it. If "Journalists" ever want to be taken seriously as sources of news again, they are going to have to flush their deadwood like Curley here
I think it was the IBD editorial staff that pointed out the only reason AP wants the charges out now (and the Pentagon chooses to wait until the hearing) is because AP wants to try the case in the press.
Tom Curley is a genuine American enemy. He is a pacifist who refuses to seperate a nation at war from a nation at peace.
He will learn the difference when his photog testifies against him
Bring it on AP, the public loathes you clowns almost as much as they do Used Car Salesman and Telemarketers. Let have a public debate about your aiding and abetting Al Qeda and other enemies of the USA.
Do you suppose some folks are going to become targets of the Jihadists if the military releases its evidence? Duh?
Someone had to have the goods on this AP photographer aiding Al Qaeda. Curly is trying to intimidate the military into leaking names. When the Jihadists blast those named, he can then release AP stories saying “see, renewed violence shows America is losing and insurgents are winning.” Someone involved in the prosecution would then have blood on their hands. Curly would love to see that. The AP loves loose lips, unless the loose lips are disclosing secrets from Hillary Clinton’s well stocked closet of skeletons.
Talk about foxes and hen houses....:^)
Do you think that maybe disclosure of information could jeopardize sources and/or missions?
Maybe the Chief can be added to this list:
I hope we don’t bring this style of “democracy” home to the US!
Don’t forget about the Washington Poop reporter who jeered at a press conference when asked why they don’t run any of the positive stories about what the troops are accomplishing only to retort something along the lines of “what are we supposed to do? publish your propaganda???”
They have no problem with publishing the ENEMY’s propaganda. They stand united against the Republican administration. Aid and comfort to the enemy in a time of war is treason. Try them, convict them, and punish them.
The AP has a terrorist on their payroll. What a surprise.
Pray for W and Our Freedom Givers
"Well the media is reluctant, you know, to print positive stories about Iraq cause that would be seen as helping Bush".
Curley should be stood against a wall and shot
Being apprehended in the company of several agents of Al Qaida is also pretty damning.
Then again Time Magazine has a journalist embedded with the insurgents and has since before Saddam was captured.
I cannot locate the clip on youtube right now but there is a clip that has been posted in the past with Peter Jennings and I believe Dan Brokaw (and others) having a discussion about “loyalty” and journalism.
The topic comes up with a journalist having foreknowledge of a planned attack on our troops and whether they should disclose it to the troops. Jennings at first says that it would be a difficult decision to make but that he would alert the American troops. Brokaw or whoever it is in the discussion with him shames him into changing his answer to say that no he would not act on that knowledge to alert the troops. He would maintain a “neutral” reporting position.
Now consider just how much classified information has been leaked by our media to the enemy in this war.
They are not neutral. They have a vested interest in seeing us lose. Just as they did in Vietnam. Commie sympathizers. They don’t disagree with reason for the war. They support the enemy.
Add the puiblishers of the NY Times and WAPO and you’ve got the treason trifecta.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.