The first amendment

"Until now, the world with amazing sympathy has been treating America in response to the atrocities of the terrorists on September 11. But most of this feeling is based on the fact that everyone recognizes: the terrorists tried to destroy the universal values of morality and law. It would be a monstrous mistake on the part of the United States to turn this feeling against themselves, refusing to follow the norms of the Geneva Convention regarding the prisoners of prisoners And other documents that can be applied to the detainees, exported to the naval base in Guantanamo, "is a quote from an editorial article in the newspaper Boston Gloub. An editorial article in the newspaper Washington Post: “That Guantanamo has become a disaster in relations with public opinion, even though it may not have been a disaster with a violation of human rights - the Bush administration should blame itself.” Journalists write that the military tried to control the flow of information, tried to prevent an independent press to prisoners, and meager information from the base in Guantanamo gave reasons for suspicion: they are inhumanly to prisoners.

The stingy shots of prisoners were broadcast and printed. In these pictures, the fighters of al -Qaida and the Taliban - on the knees, in shackles, in handcuffs, someone in masks. It is also known about prisoners that they shaved their beards and that they contain them in cells with an area of 6 square meters. This buying information forced, for example, the Government of Great Britain to demand the issuance of three British citizens from among the prisoners of British justice. US Secretary of Defense Donald Ramsfeld was forced to give clarification:

Donald Ramsfeld:

More than 150 detainees have souls with hot water, toilets, water, pure clothing, blankets, regular nutrition of the food that corresponds from cultural origin, prayer mats and the ability to perform religious rites, modern medical care of much higher standards than those that they could get in Afghanistan, the ability to engage in physical exercises, individual premises Letters and the right to visit by representatives of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Irina Lagunina:

Explanations of the US Minister of Defense did not remove for the American administration the problem that the anti-terrorist coalition may weaken due to the lack of independent information about the content of prisoners. And the Pentagon was forced to bring to the base of journalists from France, Germany, Australia and Great Britain. Are there any established rules of relations between the press and people in the form? Especially when is it about the coverage of military operations by journalists? The question to the employee of the human rights organization "Freedom Forum" (Freedom forum), in which there is a center and called - the center of the first amendment to the American Constitution that guarantees freedom of speech.

Paul McMasters:

Unfortunately, these rules are established for each new military operation separately. The most free press was during the Vietnam War. And from the point of view of journalists, the coverage of this war was very successful. From the point of view of the individual military, nevertheless, this freedom of coverage of military operations in Vietnam led to the fact that the American people did not support this war. So after that, in each individual case, agreements were concluded between journalists and the military. For example, during the war, a joint commission was created in Grenada, which developed a list of rights of representatives of information funds. These rights, however, were successfully forgotten when the operation in Panama began. Then, the next stage, is a war in the bay. During it, the most stringent restrictions were established for journalists. I have to notice: the most tough - at that time. The pools were created, the military was constantly accompanied by the military, even when recording the interview, for example, and, the worst, the military analyzed the messages to whether they contain secret information. The press materials were checked even before they were sent to the press in the USA. These rules were so strict, from the point of view of journalists, they limited freedom of speech so much that representatives of the information and representatives of the Pentagon were forced immediately after the end of the war in the bay to sit at the negotiating table and develop a document of 9 principles that must comply with both parties during the next military operation. And everyone thought that it would be so - until the war in Afghanistan began. Now the military has simply forgotten about these nine principles. So now we can say that this operation introduced the most stringent restrictions on the work of journalists who are trying to penetrate the combat area.

Irina Lagunina:

What did these nine principles include?

Paul McMasters:

Basically, they concerned those moments that caused the greatest concern for the press during the “storm in the desert”. One of the principles concerned the coverage of events with bullets. The agreement was such that in the initial stage of the war, the pools were necessary, but as soon as the military create their own bases, they are strengthened in the country where the conflict is underway, American journalists will be allowed to cover the war on their own. Another principle is that correspondents should not obey the rules of the military operation established by the military. But the main thing is that there was no consent about whether military right to check materials and reports on the subject of whether they contain secret information. I would say that the parties agreed that they will not be able to achieve the consent on this issue. And due to the fact that there is no consent on this issue, in Afghanistan there is now such a situation that many journalists are forced to expose their lives of danger because they cannot move around the country with the military, cannot join the military units, and therefore cannot cover military operations from close but safe distances. Moreover, in many cases, journalists were refused to cover the issues and problems that really concerned the problems of security or the course of the military operation, and indeed the military themselves, but clearly was related to the fact that the government wants to control the information. In addition to this, there were cases when reporters were given misinformation or wrong information, well, or, let’s say, the information that turned out to be inaccurate in fact.

Irina Lagunina:

We will continue the conversation with an employee of the human rights organization Freedom Forum. In the meantime, I will say that the war in Afghanistan has already turned out to be one of the most bloody wars for the international press. Due to the fact that the military is trying to take control of information, as Paul McMasters said, journalists are forced to move around the country on their own. Eight correspondents died. Several people are taken hostage - in exchange for political requirements. Others are stolen for the sake of money. The price for a journalist in Afghanistan has recently been 50 thousand dollars. All this forced the International Federation of Journalists to appeal to the authorities and representatives of the information business - to ensure the minimum requirements for the safety of the press. And the organization "reporters without borders" proposed to accept an international charter - the rules of relations between the military and journalists covering the war. The Charter applies to both the safety problems of journalistic work and the problems of censorship. In this war, the Ministry of Defense of the United States and France introduced censorship even in commercial photographs of the territory of Afghanistan from satellites. At the same time, in Afghanistan - unlike, say, from Yugoslavia, the times of NATO airlines - local authorities and local military pressure on journalists practically do not have. Reporting from Kabul correspondent of the Central News Agency Radio Liberty/Free Europe Bruce Paner:

Bruce Paner:

There is an unclear situation now with freedom of speech in Afghanistan. In principle, the state guarantees the rights of the media that work as they want. But in fact, the authorities here simply cannot now pay attention to newspapers, radio and television. One independent newspaper has already begun to work in the capital, in Kabul. But the editor -in -chief of the newspaper Kabul Weekly Fahim Dashti admitted that the newspaper has not yet been registered in the Ministry of Culture and Information. There is a problem with the connection between the regions. The head of the GOSTELEARIO Afghanistan Hafiz Mansur said that state television can be obtained only in certain areas of Kabula. The situation with the radio is slightly better, and about 75 percent of the Afghans can take a radio signal. Almost no one here criticizes power. The newspaper "Kabul Weekly" wrote that the situation in the country does not improve so quickly due to the constant travel of ministers abroad. The state’s reaction to this criticism is not yet known. Until now, the majority here believe that freedom of speech is guaranteed and will be guaranteed. But, of course, the people of the country are still glad that there are no Taliban, and rarely look far into the future.

Irina Lagunina:

From Kabul, a Radio Liberty correspondent/Free Europe Bruce Paner told.

How all this censorship introduced by the International Coalition is combined with the first amendment to the American Constitution, which guarantees America freedom of speech. The historical review was prepared by our correspondent in Washington Vladimir Abarinov:

Vladimir Abarinov:

“Congress should not issue laws establishing any religion or prohibiting its free confession that limit the freedom of speech or press or the right of the people to gather peacefully and turn to the government with petitions to terminate abuse,” the first amendment to the US Constitution says. Together with nine others, she makes up a Bill on Rights, adopted by the first session of the independent America Congress in 1789. For more than two centuries of the existence of amendment, it has overgrown with many interpretations, gave rise to an independent branch of law, subjected to incessant attempts to question it or limit its action - and still survived and remains one of the pillars of American statehood.

Russian President Vladimir Putin not so long ago stated that the freedom of the press "should be legally limited", since it "limits the freedom of others." At the same time, Putin referred to Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence and the Third President of the United States. Jefferson's widely known aphorism, however, sounds like this: "If I were given the right to decide whether we have a government without a free press or a free press without a government, I would prefer the last option."

At the same time, Jefferson advocated the responsibility of the press and for the legislative restriction of its right to freely disseminate knowingly false information. But other founders did not agree with such a restriction of freedom of speech. Since Jefferson believed that truthful information could not ruin the reputation of a decent person, he put an experiment on himself, allowing the press to speak with any attacks on himself. He was insulted a lot, but his reputation was not affected by the result: he was elected for a second term by the vast majority, thereby proving the meaningless restrictions of the freedom of the press.

Introducing the first correction, the founding fathers created the Free Press Institute, the tool for monitoring the three branches of the authorities, not accountable to any of them. This "fourth power" differs from the first three, forming a system of checks and counterweights.

One of the most famous cases of freedom of the press lost by the government is the New York Times against the United States. In 1971, the newspaper received a copy of the top secret dossier, known as Pentagon's Documents, from the former employee of the Ministry of Defense of Daniel Ellsberg. These papers revealed the background of the US entry into the war in Vietnam. After the publication of the first fragment, the Minister of Justice John Mitchell sent the editorial office a telegram in which he warned that the publication is subject to spying law and could cause "irreparable damage to the interests of the US defense capabilities." The government made a court prohibition, however, two weeks later the Supreme Court allowed the New-York Times to continue the publication of the dossier. The court ruled that the US Constitution contains a “strong presumption” in favor of the freedom of the press, and the government could not prove that the publication of “Pentagon documents” would supposedly lead to serious consequences.

A few attempts by officials to sue the press, as a rule, ended in complete failure. In 1964, the Supreme Court made a significant decision in the case of the Alabam elected official Sullivan, who claimed that he was slandered by the same New-York Times. The judges came to the conclusion that some information that appeared in the newspaper does not correspond to reality. Nevertheless, the Areopag said that he was considering the case "amid the country's deep commitment to the principle that the discussion of issues that have public importance should be free, active and widely open, and that at the same time fierce, caustic and sometimes unpleasant and sharp attacks on the authorities and officials." As a result, the members of the Supreme Court decided that the official could not receive compensation for moral damage if it did not prove that the false information defamed with evil intent, "that is, that the authors of the message knew that it did not correspond to reality, or did not care about its reliability."

The highest judicial authority of the United States was not imbued with sympathy and those politicians who demanded that the information be required to publish a refutation of false messages. In 1974, when considering the Miami Herald Publishing case against Tornillo, the judges faced the question whether the press should provide an equal newspaper square to respond to these attacks, as required by the Florida Law. The court recognized the law unconstitutional, explaining that the first amendment forces any restrictions on the freedom of the press, and forced publication is just such a restriction. However, in the same case, electronic means of information did not receive the same protection.

Irina Lagunina:

Our correspondent in Washington Vladimir Abarinov told. It is electronic means of information, since the most popular and most affordable, suffer from military censorship in the first place. But even when monitoring the flow of information, the US Minister of Defense is forced to make excuses:

Donald Ramsfeld:

Of course, anyone would be worried about the reports that prisoners are inappropriately. But the fact remains: the attitude is appropriate, I have no doubt that it is humane, correct and largely corresponding to the Geneva Conventions.

Irina Lagunina:

Quote from the press conference of the US Minister of Defense Donald Ramsfeld. How to evaluate the lighting of the base in Guantanamo in terms of freedom of information? Question to the employee of the organization "Freedom Forum" to Paul McMasters:

Paul McMaster:

This example just highlights the problem with the restriction on information as a whole. The international community quite sharply criticized the United States that prisoners are inappropriately or not in accordance with international agreements. The Minister of Defense of Ramsfeld admitted at one of the press conferences that the lack of reports from the base, perhaps, precisely gave rise to suspicions that the prisoners were inappropriately. Such problems arise when the press does not give access to information. There is a danger that the public will have a false idea of what is happening. And, in the end, it turns out that the public is asked to support a military operation, but at the same time the public should do this based on information that only official government people give. This information is not confirmed by an independent and free press.

Irina Lagunina:

We recorded this recognition of the US Minister of Defense:

Donald Ramsfeld:

I don’t know where these messages come from, that prisoners are inappropriately. We know that those who have real information do not tell this. This is clear, because the attitude to the prisoners is appropriate.

Irina Lagunina:

But Guantanamo is a pure example of how the military does not allow journalists. Another problem is that, due to the development of war technologies, they become virtual.

Paul McMasters:

Of course, this is partly true that in the war there was a certain virtual shade. But the work of journalists has not changed from this. She still consists in the fact that the journalist must find out what happened and inform the American public about it. What has changed is the possibility of a Pentagon and the White House to control the flow of information. And the possibility of journalists to report accurate information about what military operations are underway, how the operation itself is developing, what the military planned, was undermined in the current operation in many respects. Now almost all the information about the war in Afghanistan comes from the Pentagon. This does not mean that this information is inaccurate or wrong, this means only one thing - this information is not confirmed and not verified by independent sources, a press that works independently.

Irina Lagunina:

Кто и что может заставить военных делиться информацией?

Пол Макмастерс:

Этого не произойдет, пока главнокомандующий и министр обороны не прикажут это делать. Если они не дадут ясно понять, что военные должны делиться информацией о военной операции, отделяя ее от информации, которая на самом деле касается безопасности страны, то низшие военные чины информацией не поделятся. А если низшие военные чины не будут делиться информацией, то мы все окажемся в ситуации, когда жизненно важная информация просто не достигает американского общества, когда американскому обществу отказано в этой информации.

Irina Lagunina:

Какую-то роль в данном случае гражданское общество играет?

Пол Макмастерс:

Конечно, мы же уже видели, что базу в Гуантанамо посетили политические лидеры, избранные народом, - члены Сената, члены Конгресса. И это, конечно, - ответ на общественное беспокойство, на общественное желание, чтобы общество же заверили в том, что на самом деле американские военные относятся к заключенным настолько гуманно, насколько это возможно в данных обстоятельствах.

Irina Lagunina:

Недавно корреспондент газеты "New-York Times" провел собственное расследование в городке Орузган в полуторастах километрах к северу от Кандагара. Американские зеленые береты провели в этом городе рейд, в результате которого погибли более 20, как выяснилось, местных афганских военнослужащих и были задержаны 27. В ходе рейда, как утверждает представитель американского командования, был уничтожен склад боеприпасов и оружия. Как утверждают местные жители, показания которых приводит корреспондент "New-York Times", это был склад оружия, собранного у населения в ходе кампании по разоружению Афганистана. В статье больше вопросов, чем ответов. Но она показывает мнения обеих сторон и излагает правду - не только военных, но местных жителей. Пол Макмастерс, "Freedom Forum", какое воздействие на американское общественное мнение оказывают подобные публикации?

Пол Макмастерс:

Ясно, что абсолютное большинство американцев поддерживают то, что делают сейчас в Афганистане американские военные. И я абсолютно уверен, что большинство способны понять и простить военным неудачи, промахи и все, что не удалось сделать в полной мере, как было задумано. Но именно этого понимания в длительной перспективе (а не забывайте, президент сказал, что эта война будет длиться долгие годы) не будет, если американская общественность поймет, что ее держат в информационной темноте или что ей предоставляют приготовленную, специально отобранную информацию. Американцы достойны того, чтобы им предоставляли полный отчет о том, что происходит, чтобы им давали анализ происходящего с разных сторон. В демократическом обществе надо доверять именно обществу, доверять тому, что оно способно вычленить правду из множества мнений о происходящем. Особенно по такому важному вопросу, как вопрос о том, каким образом мы ведем войну в Афганистане.

Irina Lagunina:

Говорил Пол Макмастерс, сотрудник правозащитной журналистской организации "Форум свободы", "Freedom Forum".

• 

  Irina Lagunina

  Head of Special Projects of Russian Service Radio Liberty

  Laguninai@rferl.org