It looks like our story got some attention in Afghanistan. AP stringer Rahmatullah Naikzad was detained for two days after he filmed the brutal murder of two women by the Taliban accused of prostitution. The incident was first noted by us here and, as Fox News reports (hey, you guys don't know how to link?), "the AP has been following this case closely with some concern," after we raised several questions about Naikzad's relationship with the Taliban.

The video Naikzad made is here (WARNING: Graphic).

It's good to see that Naikzad is now helping local Afghan authorities track down those responsible for the murders. However, Naikzad's version of events still raise some serious questions about journalistic ethics.

Naikzad claims he has no connection to the Taliban. And says:

the Taliban issued a press statement calling all media outlets in the province of Ghazni, which has a large Taliban presence, to cover them “carrying out the Shariah” on a few burglars in their custody. Naikzad said he believed the Taliban would be cutting off the limbs of their prisoners, according to strict Islamic law.

Okay, so according to his own version of events Naikzad knew beforehand that the Taliban planned to administer extra judicial punishment on what he presumed were thieves. He also believed that he would be a witness to the cutting off of these alleged thieves hands?

So, Naikzad knows that a crime-- and what probably would be considered a war crime--- is about to be committed by an internationally recognized terrorist group. Further, he knows the location of the terrorists and the location where the war crime is about to be committed.

What does the AP stringer do? Does he call up the local authorities? Does he notify the closest NATO outpost or headquarters? No.

After a member of the Taliban personally called him up and assured Naikzad of his safety if he would come to watch the crimes committed, he then checks with his bosses at the AP:

He said he checked with the Kabul office of the Associated Press, for which he works as a stringer, and then set off around sunset on his motorbike to a village on the outskirts of Ghazni City, only to find that no other journalist was there.

Here is an even more important question about the AP's involvement. The AP is an American company. The organization, according to Naikzad, had prior knowledge about the location of a group of enemies of the US . The organization also had prior knowledge that a crime was about to be committed.

Did the Associated Press notify NATO forces with this information? The article makes no mention of this. What it does imply is that the AP gave Naikzad the green light to be a witness to a war crime.

Do journalists and news corporations have a moral responsibility to try to prevent such crimes? I believe they do. Becoming a journalist does not give one a free pass from the normal moral obligations required of human beings.

We'll return to this later.

After Naikzad met with the Taliban he learned that it was not thieves who were to have their limbs amputated, but women who were to be "executed".

Not so incidentally, Naikzad spent some of these daylight hours between the time that he first meets up with the Taliban and later that night when the two women were murdered snapping photos and making video of the Taliban marching and posing for him. Some of the poses show the Taliban in attack exercises.

If you read the Fox News story they also use the troubling word "execute" to describe the cold blooded murder of two women. That is, they allow the Taliban to choose the words to describe their own heinous crime. This is one of the main objections I raised when I first noted the AP's involvement in the murders.

The use of neutral terminology to describe what is clearly a crime is simply unacceptable. Perhaps "execution style murder" would be the only description other than "murder" which would be apt.

Moral equivocation has been all the rage in our institutions of higher learning since the 1960s, but it is perhaps seen clearest in the way reporters and editors are taught that "ethics" require strict neutrality: even when that neutrality is clearly immoral.

Neutrality between liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats are one thing. But neutrality between our country and the enemies we fight is not.

Let's get back to Naikzad's story. As the women are about to be "executed" he claims:

“I told one of the Taliban, ‘These are women, they are harmless. Why would you want to kill them?’ But they didn’t listen to me.”

If true, good for you Naikzad. This is an important piece of context to the story. A journalist with some balls!

But, isn't it troubling that Naikzad went to the meeting with the Taliban fully expecting to film/photograph limb amputations? Which the phrase, by the way, makes sound quite clinical. I've seen the way the Taliban "amputate" limbs. They don't take their victims to some hospital. They tend to use common knives, there is a great deal of blood, and horrible screaming.

Again, it's even more troubling that the Associated Press sent him.

One of the things we pointed out in our criticism of the AP and of Naikzad was that the organization had been used by the Taliban to produce a propaganda snuff film for them. I claimed that the AP was worse than al Jazeera because at least al Jazeera only played these types of videos while the AP had now been reduced to producing them.

Naikzad, though, claims that the Taliban told him not to video tape the "execution":

He said the Taliban turned him down, but his camera was already rolling and he kept it on when he placed it on the seat of his bike.

It's interesting to note that Fox's reporter seems skeptical of the claim owing to the fact that the video seems to follow the Taliban murderers after they kill the two women. How is it possible that if he had set the camera down on his motorcycle's seat so that the Taliban wouldn't notice he was filming them that the camera seems to follow their movements?

Naikzad claims:

“I was standing near the bike, so my body may have touched the camera,” Naikzad said, explaining the movement of the camera. He stumbled slightly and added, “I myself nudged the camera a little bit.”

Ookay. Right. I guess it's possible if not entirely plausible.

Here's where we get back to the equivocation:

“If I have photographed Taliban casualties, I have also photographed American casualties. I have been balanced in my journalism,” he said.

Again, this raises serious ethical questions about what it means to be "balanced" in war reporting. Especially in a war against enemy combatants who by every measure of the Geneva Conventions are illegal!

So, two main issues remain even after we hear Naikzad's version of events.

1) Do journalists have a moral responsibility that trumps whatever ethical standards they learned in journalism school to try and prevent heinous crimes that puts life or limb in jeopardy? I think yes. And if the AP had prior knowledge that these crimes were about to be committed then they had a moral (and perhaps legal) responsibility to notify those with the power to stop them. In this case probably NATO.

2) Do journalists have an allegiance to their home country in times of war that transcends the normal peace time journalistic ethic of "neutrality"? Again, I think yes. I do not necessarily think that journalists shouldn't try to understand why our enemies do the things they do. But note that they are our enemies, journalists included.

American journalists must recognize that America's enemies are their enemies. The Associated Press is and American company. Their allegiances must be to America.

There are two problems with the Naikzad incident raised by this second question. First, if the Associated Press, an American company, knew the location of enemy combatants it seems that they would have an obligation to report that, does it not?

Second, when American companies hire foreign stringers to do their reporting for them it would seem that they have a responsibility to add a context to the story which clearly distinguishes between our actions and the actions of our enemies. Such a distinction isn't always easy to make. We shoot at the Taliban, they shoot back.

But in the case where the Taliban's version of events is that two women were "executed" for crimes against Sharia law, but where Americans (and might I add the rest of the civilized world) would see the event as murder plain and simple, then clearly the context of the story must reflect American values and not the values of the barbaric enemies we fight.

The one bright spot in this whole thing is that the AP seems to at least be troubled by what happened. A feeling, I'm sorry to say, they seemed not to have after another one of their stringers in Iraq was caught with an al Qaeda operative.

Thanks to various readers who sent me this.

Previously:
AP Stringer Stands by as Taliban Murder 2 Women, Gets Snuff Footage
Question About Journalistic Ethics: Are the AP Accomplices to Murder, Traitors, or Just Horrible Journos?
By Dr. Rusty Shackleford at 05:05 PM | Comments (39) | Trackback (1) | digg this

Hizballah Terrorist Samir Kuntar Basks in Freedom While Syria Tortures Innocent Lebanese
By Andrew Cochran

On July 16, I posted a report from CTB Newslinks Assistant Editor Phillip Smyth on the release in Lebanon of convicted terrorist Samir Kuntar. Here is a follow-up report from Phillip.
-----------
As the number one star in the Hizballah “Divine Victory” lineup, Samir Kuntar has been the flaming sword that Hizballah holds aloft to show the Lebanese and the world that Nasrallah is in charge. Promising to strike Israel again, Kuntar said, “I return today from Palestine, but believe me, I return to Lebanon only in order to return to Palestine.” Kuntar went beyond just attacking the “Little Satan” (Israel), and moved onto criticizing the “Great Satan” (the United States of America). While attending a ceremony honoring the recently assassinated Hizballah terrorist-extraordinaire, Imad Mughnieh, Kuntar let his true feelings be known. "We swear to God...to continue on [Mughnieh’s] same path and not to retreat until we achieve the same stature that Allah bestowed on you." Mughnieh was implicated or accused of organizing operations such as the hijacking of TWA Flight 847, the Beirut Marine Barracks bombing, and the 1983 bombing of the US embassy in Beirut.

The prisoner swap also had broader repercussions on internal Lebanese politics. Riding the wave of Hizballah’s victory, the Free Patriotic Movement (FPM), largely discredited in many Christian circles for standing by their Hizballah ally during the May fighting, has started justifying their choice in having pro-Syrian allies. Lebanon’s telecommunications minister Jibran Bassil (a senior FPM member), stated that following the prisoner exchange, Israel would randomly harass Lebanese, “The phone would ring, the person would answer and they would hear a message saying, "This is from the state of Israel. Abandon Hizbullah or there will be another war, like there was in 2006.'" Funny, considering many in March 14th were saying (publically and privately) that if the FPM didn’t abandon their Hizballah ally that it could embolden Hizballah into another 2006 style war.

While Lebanon was shut down for celebrations yesterday, how did the new Lebanese president treat the newly arrived Kuntar? Other than congratulating and praising Samir Kuntar, he did refer to Lebanese prisoners abroad, albeit, in a pro-Syrian political posture. He deliberately neglected to inform the audience which state these prisoners were held: Syria. In reference to these prisoners, President Sulieman used the ambiguous term, “al-mafkoud”or, “the lost”. Where were these people “lost” and why? A friend in Lebanon quipped, “what was he referring to? [Sulieman makes it sound as if] A Lebanese was going for a hike and [just] got lost in a place like Canada or Panama.”

The real knock-out punch didn’t just come from Lebanon’s new president’s cowering to Syria. Unbelievably, the number two official in the Lebanese Forces, the smiling George Adwan, was in attendance at the “welcome home” celebrations for Kuntar. This is a far cry from Adwan’s statements during the funeral for assassinated anti-Syrian journalist Gibran Tueni in 2006, “hold on to Gebran's dream and don't go for half solutions or compromises.” Interestingly the LF’s leader, Samir Geagea did offer his criticism of the Kuntar affair, saying, “[only] when prisoners are freed from Syrian jails and when those who sought refuge in Israel return to their homes,” can Lebanon can be truly celebrate.

Read More »

What are you talking about, coverage drying up?

Iraqi - News Results

* Iraqi PM says US should leave as soon as possible AP via Yahoo! News - 14 minutes ago
* Iraqi refugees duped by smugglers promising Europe AP via Yahoo! News - 36 minutes ago
* Iraqi Sunnis End Boycott and Rejoin Government Ne

The armed force's don't want a draft. Only asshole's like you advocate such nonsense.

It was a good day for Iraq & America.

George W. & George H.W. Bush - Living proof that the dumbshit doesn't fall far from the dumbass.

CHAD

Cheicken Hawks Against the Draft

Uncommon Senate Hearing Discusses Islamist Group Agendas

IPT News
July 17, 2008

An open hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs bore witness to an unusually candid discussion about the Muslim Brotherhood's network in the United States. It was unusual in the respect that it was discussed at all. The fact that many major American Muslim organizations are derived from the Muslim Brotherhood is rarely addressed on Capitol Hill.

The topic of the July 10 hearing was, "The Roots of Violent Islamist Extremism and Efforts to Counter It," and the subject most discussed was Islamist ideology as the root cause of terrorism. What made this hearing significant was the extent to which the U.S.-based Muslim Brotherhood network was discussed in oral and written testimony – largely by Zeyno Baran, senior fellow and director of the Center for Eurasian Policy at the Hudson Institute.

Ms. Baran's central point was that, while not all Islamists will become terrorists, all Islamic terrorists begin with Islamist ideology. She cited the Muslim Brotherhood as the "prime example" of the spectrum of Islamist groups that, while differing in tactics, agree on their final goal: a world dominated by Islamic law, or Shariah. As such, Ms. Baran pointed out that there were inherent problems with the outreach policies of various government agencies. She specifically cited sensitivity training for the FBI run by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) as "completely self-defeating" as FBI agents might be taught to be overly sensitive and may avoid asking certain questions during investigations that they should be asking.

Ms. Baran elaborated on some of the precepts of Hizb ut-Tahrir, an Islamist movement dedicated to re-establishing the Caliphate. In doing so, she made a revealing comment on Islamist strategy in the West:

The freedom and justice HT seeks by overthrowing democracy can often only be attained through violence. However, HT is not likely to take up terrorism itself. Terrorist acts are simply not part of its mission. HT exists to serve as an ideological and political training ground for Islamists. And I have called them a "conveyer belt to terrorism." In order to best accomplish this goal, HT will remain non-violent, acting within the legal systems of the countries in which it operates. The same can be said actually about many of the Islamist organizations, including the Brotherhood. These groups do not need to become terrorists because winning hearts and minds is far more effective in achieving the ultimate goal. But of course they do not rule out the use of force if they cannot establish their caliphate via non-violent means.

She also painted a picture of the Brotherhood infrastructure in the United States:

Following the bottom-up approach focusing on education, the first organizations created in America were the Muslim Student Associations (MSA), which are based in universities. After they graduated, the North American Islamic Trust (NAIT) was created in order to expand these radical ideas and extend the influence of Islamism beyond college campuses. In the 1980s, several other prominent Islamist organizations were created including the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), the Islamic Association for Palestine (IAP), and after Hamas was created in 1987 in Gaza, the IAP became its leading representative in North America.

There are a whole set of other organizations that can be added to this list; I will just mention the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which I believe was created by MB to influence the US government, Congress, and NGOs, along with academic and media groups. Despite being founded by leading Islamists, CAIR has successfully portrayed itself as a mainstream Muslim organization over the past 15 years—and has been treated as such by many US government officials, including Presidents Clinton and Bush.

What is critically important in all these organizations is their support for one another; the same leaders appear in multiple organizations, tend to have familial relations, and move within the same close trusted circles.

Why haven't these facts been subject to more open and public discourse on Capitol Hill and in the mainstream media? Ms. Baran answered that herself in her opening remarks:

I understand that for most Americans, dealing with Islamism is extremely difficult because it is associated with Islam. Very few people dare to question the beliefs or actions of Muslims for fear of being called a bigot or an Islamophobe.

As an observant Muslim herself, Ms. Baran is in a unique position to understand and appreciate the Islamist challenge facing America. Other witnesses before the committee, however, did not agree with her assessment. Dr. Peter P. Mandaville of George Mason University commented that some individuals associated with CAIR may share the Muslim Brotherhood ideology, but said that it would be "wrong to characterize the organization in its entirety" as a Muslim Brotherhood front group. Dr. Fathali M. Moghaddam of Georgetown University dismissed concerns about CAIR's sensitivity training, claiming that the FBI agents he has taught would not be affected by any excessive sensitivity (and incidentally came out with a ringing endorsement of a book by John Esposito, his colleague at Georgetown, and director of the university's Prince Alwaleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding). Michael E. Leiter, the Director of the National Counterterrorism Center, refused to condemn the FBI's outreach policy, claiming that outreach was critical. Mr. Leiter advocated full-spectrum outreach, even with those who might be anti-American, but drew the line before those who supported violence.

In March, the IPT began to roll out an extensive profile on CAIR, noting its undeniable roots at a 1993 meeting of the U.S.-based Palestine Committee of the Muslim Brotherhood attended by CAIR's founders, Omar Ahmad and Nihad Awad. The profile notes consistent support by CAIR officials and speakers at CAIR events for the use of violence and terrorism in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

By Mr. Leiter's logic, if it were established that CAIR, ISNA, and other American Islamist organizations supported violence in any part of the world, they should not be partners in outreach. Also, if outreach were to become "full-spectrum," as Mr. Leiter advocates, government agencies would have to move beyond the status quo, where all outreach is dominated by Islamist organizations to the detriment of other American Muslim organizations like the Islamic Supreme Council of North America, the American Islamic Forum for Democracy, and the American Islamic Congress – who are comparatively ignored by government officials.

Hopefully the hearing and Ms. Baran's testimony will spark further debate in policy circles, in the media, and on the blogosphere.

Click here to see IPT Executive Director Steven Emerson's report to the Committee.