Well, there were also Saddam's sons-in-law who had fled the country but were lured back on false promises, and then killed. Seems like CNN could've warned them, that is, if their primary concern was to prevent people from being murdered....
He and his family would have been in danger unless CNN offered to have him and his entire extended family relocated.
That's not the only option here. They could've come forward with the story and told the world that Saddam threatened this cameraman and his family - naming names. Then if anything had happened to him/them, the world would've known who to blame. (This is often how we handle folks who are in danger from the Cuban or Chinese regimes: we publicize their names, or try to, and make it clear that we are Aware Of Them, and this puts pressure on those governments not to do anything funny, because doing so will make them look bad and doesn't pay off in the long run.)
Granted, this plan entails risks to the people in quesiton and so would've probably required agreement from the cameraman, morally speaking. Maybe CNN asked if the cameraman was willing to go for it, and he said no. Is that what happened? We don't really know, do we? You can assume that's what happened, if you want to give CNN the benefit of the doubt, for some reason.
That's great...unless you happen to the guy!
Doh!
I don't think anyone ever doubted that Saddam tortures and murders lots and lots of people.
If it were so, Jordan would have mentioned it in his NYT article. Or, at the very least, he would be mentioning it now that the article has generated all this uproar.