FreeRepublic , LLC
PO BOX 9771
FRESNO, CA 93794
STOP BY AND BUMP THE FUNDRAISER THREAD
Posted on 10/03/2002 11:07:00 PM PDT by asneditor
Appeals judges at the International War Crimes Tribunal at The Hague are considering whether an American journalist should be forced to testify before the tribunal.
Is it conceivable that someone who could end up in front of this tribunal would speak to a reporter if that reporter were later required to give evidence against him? Floyd Abrams, lawyer
Former Washington Post reporter Jonathan Randal has been called to give evidence in a war crimes case - but refuses to do so, saying war correspondents and their sources would be in jeopardy if they were considered as potential witnesses.
Mr Randal has been called to give evidence about a 1993 article he wrote in which he quoted a former Bosnian Serb deputy prime minister, Radoslav Brdjanin, who is currently on trial, as saying that non-Serbs should be expelled.
Jonathan Randal did not appear in court for his appeal
Arguing in support of Mr Randal, global media organisations urged judges to rule that journalists should only be called to testify as a last resort and if it is crucial to the case.
War criminals might never be brought to justice if journalists are forced to testify against them, the organisations' lawyer said on Thursday.
"If such people start seeing journalists as a threat they will start taking less pacific means to prevent them testifying against them," he said.
LEGAL PRECEDENT
Mr Abrams was speaking on behalf of media groups, including the New York Times, the Associated Press, CNN, the BBC and news organisations from the former Yugoslavia.
He called on the court to set a legal precedent, which he summed up as "subpoena journalists last".
"In a system where a court seeks journalistic testimony as a last resort, then that testimony will often not be needed at all," he said.
Mr Abrams predicted that even if such a rule were adopted, journalists would still frequently be prepared to testify voluntarily.
This is the first case before the court dealing with the issue of journalistic privilege.
Journalists are divided on the issue.
Some consider it their duty to testify.
The BBC's former Belgrade correspondent, Jacky Rowland, appeared at the war crimes tribunal in the Hague in August, to give evidence at the trial of former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.
Other journalists say testifying before an international court compromises their objectivity.
CONTEMPT CHARGES
Mr Randal was not in court on Thursday.
But he has argued that a journalist relies on trust for gathering information, and that trust would be threatened if a reporter can be subpoenaed by an international court.
If the court finds Mr Randal in contempt, he could face imprisonment for up to seven years or a $100,000 fine.
A ruling in Mr Randal's case is expected in the coming weeks.
Correspondents say the decision is likely to be seen as a legal precedent, which could have ramifications for the new International Criminal Court also based in The Hague
Then we trade off, just like Francis Gary Powers for Rudolf Abel.
Presumably, ALL the bozos learn an object lesson. (And, before anyone asks, no, I do not believe the First Amendment should apply to foreigners.)
BTW I don`t say that you personaly are a liar,OK?
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.