Iraqi Government to Persecute ‘Journalist’
November 20, 2007 by Michael van der Galiën
The Jawa Report reports that “Bilal Hussein, a stringer for the Associated Press suspected of having ties to al Qaeda in Iraq, will be charged by the Iraqi government at the request of the U.S. military.” This after he was “caught in an apartment with known members of al Qaeda– with bomb making material.”
What’s more, not only will Hussein be charged by the Iraqis, it seems that the US military found out who he is because of the coverage of TJR. A member of the US military told TJR that he realized who Hussein is after he saw a photo of him on the anti-Jihadi blog.
If you want to know more about Bilal Hussein - Al Qaeda propagandist - go to Michelle’s place.
The AP wants to turn this into a ‘they’re persecuting journalists now’-story, but that’s ludicrous. This isn’t about prosecuting journalists who bring objective reports, it’s about punishing those who spread enemy propaganda. As I see it, Bilal Hussein is simply a member of Al Qaeda, whose job it isn’t to blow himself up, but to spread photos, etc. that ‘glorify’ Al Qaeda terrorists.
Is that a crime? In America, arresting some one for being a “terrorist media operative” (army’s words, not mine) would be problematic, I think 1. I’d imagine Iraq has all kinds of criminal statutes held over from the Hussein era that criminalize speech, but is that a good thing?
1 It’s tempting to say that anyone around bad guys should tell the police or whomever. That position creates a Good Samaritan Duty (what Seinfeld was jailed for in the last episode), which is generally disfavored in our legal system. As far as I know, we don’t have any affirmative duties to act, the failure to discharge creates criminal penalties.
Let me amend that above a bit - in America, and this tracks my intuition, the enemy propaganda would have to be so obvious as to constitute an action, as opposed to mere speech. The speech would have to be so incendiary so that people hearing it would be immediately affected such that they become like instruments of the speaker (that’s a common formulation for statutes that criminalize speech and have to get around the First Amendment).
That doesn’t seem to even be close to the photos of Hussein, which is why it doesn’t at all seem like spreading propaganda is the nut of the case (and hence the first comment; if it’s something other than spreading propaganda, it’s gotta be the failure to endanger journalists by turning the subjects of the pictures over to the army)
JPE: he’s just as guilty as Goebbels was.
The terrorists fight their war in different ways: by blowing people up and by spreading propaganda to rally people for their cause.
Hussein should be punished.
There are plenty of Iraqis calling on their fellowmen to kill Americans and collaborators. There’s no way that Hussein’s photos are more propaganda-ish than those aforementioned. And, notably, the AP isn’t being charged with spreading propaganda (if that’s the real charge, and if there were a colorable case, they’d be just as culpable for distributing it)
I think if we were to go back through the extensive winger archives on Hussein, the primary objection wouldn’t be to the photos themselves (ie, the content of the photos, which is what he’s ostensibly being charged for), but the fact that he was so close to the terrorists but never reported them to the good guys.
That’s obviously reason enough to prosecute him, but him spreading enemy propaganda is a good reason, imo, as well.
He isn’t ‘reporting,’ he collaborating.
He isn’t ‘reporting,’ he collaborating.
Actually, that’s it right there. Bilal Hussein was arrested as an insurgent in the company of an Al Qaeda leader, in an apartment full of IED manufacturing equipment and materials, with burnt explosives residue on his clothing and body. He wasn’t recognized as the AP photog for weeks after his arrest–and then AP started demanding he be released just because he’s a “journalist.” As if that gives him a pass.
It’s quite likely that much of what he photo’d was staged for his benefit with his knowledge, including the murders of innocent people. And the circumstances of his arrest are not terribly ambiguous. He’s an accessory to murder and terrorism. And yes, misprision of a felony is STILL a crime in the US. And misprision of terrorism is a crime just about everywhere. Including in Iraq.
JPE: he’s just as guilty as Goebbels was.
Godwin rears it’s ugly head. This recalls the sniper incident, the press shouldn’t be collaborators nor should they be DoD mouthpieces.
Persecute or Prosecute - Is something lost in translation? (LOL)
I don’t think that’s a crime. In America, at least, accessory liability requires some kind of affirmative act which appears to be missing. Mere presence ain’t gonna do it.
Tully: as with accessory liability, misprision requires an affirmative act (see US v Johnson, 546 F.2d 1225), such as action to conceal. Needless to say publishing the criminals in action is the precise opposite thereof.
You guys on the right seem convinced of his guilt, when the military itself hasn’t made its case public. The fact that they’ve pawned this off on an Iraqi court speaks more about kangaroos than justice. The fact that you link to Malkin’s site suggests you’re running with the rabid hysterics. Not a pretty site at all…
You all better be careful, this guy might wind up living next door to you in the Federal Witness Protection Program!
Needless to say publishing the criminals in action is the precise opposite thereof.
BS. At what point did he report the crimes to the authorities as required under the law? Not that US law matters in this case (jurisdiction, anyone?), but publication for his own purposes doesn’t cut it as reporting to authorities.
Jim, if the MSM will not report, you gotta link were there’s reporting. Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. I link to TPM on a regular basis, for example. Malkin has a lovely gallery of photos by Hussein, including his presence for the street execution of election workers, and the desert execution of Italian national Salvatore Santoro. If you have an alternate explanation on how he managed to be in such locations on such a timely basis, how he managed to become such a “go-to guy” for AQ, please, do enlighten us.
AP has been screaming for Bilal Hussein to receive his day in court for months. Now that their request has been granted, they seem to be totally against it.
While Bilal Hussein might be innocent, if he was working in league with terrorists, he would not be the only Iraqi reporter to be doing so. The Iraqi stringers used by western media are not really vetted before being hired, are rewarded for getting the hottest stories, even if they have to exaggerate the events or outright lie. In Ramadi last year, I saw several reports from AP, Reuters, etc, claiming mass casualties as a result of US bombings of civilians. These reports were from days where no bombing had taken place in Ramadi at all. The Western reporter in the Green Zone is taking the word of the stringer in Ramadi, he can’t go to confirm it himself.
Some journalists are working both sides of the street, reporting real news and also putting out press for the terrorists. Some are probably encouraged to do so at with threats against their own lives.
Western journalists are generally considered to be impartial observers, and most are. The same cannot be said of all Iraqi journalists.