SportsShooter.com - U.S. holds AP photographer in Iraq 5 mos

I would've thought it is natural for photographers (and human beings in general) to support Tom Curley, AP's president and chief executive officer, when he says:
"We want the rule of law to prevail. He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable" - Randy is being skeptical.

There is nothing wrong with that. He is not saying he has an opinion, one way or the other, but that he want more information before he makes an opinion. I honestly wish more people would do that.

Now, I also have no opinion on the matter, as I don't have all the facts yet. But there was one part of the article that really caught my eye;
"The AP has worked quietly until now, believing that would be the best approach. But with the U.

S. military giving no indication it would change its stance, the news cooperative has decided to make public Hussein's imprisonment, hoping the spotlight will bring attention to his case and that of thousands of others now held in Iraq, Curley said."
Anyhow, what we need is more information about this.

And yes, being how things are going over there in Iraq right now, I wouldn't be suprised at all if this was a case of someone being held without reason. But I don't make decisions on subjects like this until I have much more information. "Do I trust AP on this?

" No I do not fully at this point in time, I want to get more facts from other sources before formulating an opinion. Again you have an AP photographer being held and the story is coming from AP by an AP writer.
I'm not being skeptical, I'm being cautious and prudent.

No one in the process of news gathering should ever blindly trust one source without verification and confirmation. You're absolutely right, but Hussein is being held by US troops, not by Iraqis. One would assume that would mean that he's being held in at least the spirit of the US Constitution.

..but then I guess that's sort of what Bush and Congress are trying to sort out now.

How does this differ from the case of Paul Salopek, the NG/Tribune writer detained and charged with spying in the Sudan? Salopek was charged, had a lawyer, allowed visitors, and was eventually able to clear himself. I'd hope our government could at least live up to the standards set by the Sudanese.

More to the point, as fellow photographers, shouldn't we give Hussein the benefit of the doubt? I'd hope my colleagues on SS would do the same for me. - Lots of talk about the constitution here, but i think what the AP is asking is that the U.

S. military should "charge or release" him. A very reasonble request.

All people in U.S. custody should have the right to a hearing and representation.

Don't any you feel he should be supported the organization he works for and by journalists in general? I do.
If he was an American photographer working for the AP in Iraq, i'm sure the reactions would be different.

- It's pretty cut and dry in my mind: you either believe in the tenets of the constitution and the bill of rights or you don't. The USA has a long history of trying to spread western democracy across the globe and I would argue the basis of that philosophy - freedom, liberty, pursuit of happiness, representative gov't, a jury of your peers, speedy trial, etc are contained in those documents. Bush Co.

has repeatedly made the point that they desire to create the first western democracy in Iraq as an example to the rest of the middle east. Holding suspects for five months without presenting evidence or a trial doesn't seem like a good start.
And, just because I love this quote and I honestly wish Americans would tape it to their rear-view mirrors so they don't foget it:
"He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security" - Ben Franklin "I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

So help me God."
The way I see it either I support the current administration or the Constitution of the United States. The oath I swore when I enlisted another lifetime ago wasn't to a particular president and his advisors.

It was, as stated above, to the Constitution and LAWFUL orders based on the UCMJ.
They need to either charge the guy or turn him loose. I'm sure the AP has worked diplomatically behind the scenes trying to get this photographer released.

Tom Curley doesn't forget his people.
So this says to me that the AP has exhausted all its back channel efforts, and now they are going public.
For all the talk of "building" democracy in the Middle East, much of what I see is the rule of law ignored.

The world isn't going to listen to America much when we don't live up the spirit of democracy and our constitution, but instead impose military rules to solve problems.
If this photographer is guilty of some thing, let's see the evidence in a court with a jury of his peers!
Clearly the man is a civilian.

The military should turn him over to a civilian court for due process.
I'm becoming confused on who the fascists are? - I'm not going to speculate as to the guilt or innocence of the photograhper in question.

There appears to be plenty of circumstantial evidence in both directions. I also agree that at some point the US military needs to fish or cut bait, and I think reasonable people can argue that we're past that point.
However, before people get too far down the road with the latest "Bu$h is using the Constitution out in the Presidental two-holer again!

" jag, people may want to consider a couple of things.
1) I doubt that such detentions, or their authorizations, are the result of an Executive Order, or similar directive, from the current administration.
2) I'll stick my neck out and guess that this phenomenon of holding locals for lengthy periods in times of war pre-dates our actions in Iraq.

I have a sneaky feeling that such detentions took place in places like Bosnia as US and NATO troops tried to sort out the "bad guys" for prosecution. I may be wrong, but I think it'd be wise for people to at least research this a bit before hurling invectives. - 1.

"I may be wrong, but I think it'd be wise for people to at least research this a bit before hurling invectives"
geoff, do you read a newspaper or watch the television news? one of the biggest stories in the past month is the president's push trying to get the congress to pass laws that would give the cia and military broad range in the "interrogation" of "suspected" criminals. it' been on the front page of our paper several times in the past couple of weeks and all over the television.

members of the republican party aren't even backing it because it guts the accords of the geneva convention and would open up the possible application of war crimes trials against US personnel.
and finally..

...

...

2. "I'll stick my neck out and guess..

...

.."
see number 1.

Bilal Hussein manages to get access to insurgents, risks his life to get images that chronicle the other side of the story and that means he is in collusion with the insugents? Whatever happned to being impartial observers and telling both sides of the story.
Do I know wether or not Hussein was staging those shots or colluding with the insurgents?

Do I see anything in these photos to give me even the slightest inckling that there is something wrong?
This blog "evidence" smells of yet another case of people basslesly attacking members of the media when they publish stories or images that contradict the way they want to view the world. - If photographing people on all sides of a conflict justifies indefinate incarceration, then a lot of us would be rotting away in Israeli jails these days.

Isn't freedom of the press and rule of the law some of the basic ingredients the US administration set out to introduce in the Middle East?
Homer Simpson said it something like this in an episode: Oppression is a small price to pay for freedom! 'Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman--declined to elaborate on what that evidence was.

'
hmmmmmmmm...

...

...

.and you support this?
Have you done any research of the little that's currently available?

Here is a link to just one that's available in the US;
"Charge him or release him it's that easy" well unfortunately it's not. Too bad we don't live in a perfect utopia. Is he being held unjustly, could be, but he is being held under austere United Nations resolutions.

And to this point in time we know Hussein's case has been reviewed three times by U.S. and Iraqi detention authorities.

"Do we know absolutely everything about him, and what he did before he joined us? No. Are we satisfied that what he did since he joined us was appropriate for the level of work we expected from him?

Yes, Lyon said."
"As the situation in Fallujah eroded in 2004, he expressed a desire to become a photographer. Hussein was given training and camera equipment and hired in September of that year as a freelancer, paid on a per-picture basis, according to Santiago Lyon, AP's director of photography.

"
So is Hussein an innocent and unjustly detained individual or a collaborating insurgent with a camera...

for those of us who's entire career has been as a photojournalist that's what is "scary". - The point, as I see it, is that Bilal Hussein isn't being held under color of any resolutions. The United Nations does not have it's own guidelines for holding prisoners.

They follow the Geneva Conventions. The United Nations has no authority in Iraq at this time.
It is also clear that American forces are holding innocent civilians in several detention facilities in Iraq and in Gitmo and that our government has sent captured civilians to other governments for detention and interrogation.

Neither our Constitution nor the Geneva Conventions allows this.
You'll notice that I said "innocent civillians". The UCMJ states that prisoners are innocent until proven guilty.

Therefore, unless evidence is presented and a judicial system finds them guilty, then they are innocent.
We are not currently at war with Iraq. The President and the Pentagon declared an end to organized resistance many months ago.

Also, war was never declared. Congress passed an authorization for the use of force, not a declaration of war. So it cannot be agued that he was a soldier in an army with which we were at war at the time he was detained.

I bring this up because many journalists were held as prisoners of war by both the Axis and the Allies during WWII.
Since the United States is not at war with the government of Iraq then it stands to reason that an Iraqi citizen working as a journalist is free to cover both sides of the conflict. I have seen no evidence to suggest that he has done anything against American or Iraqi forces.

It is also clear that he did not participate in the execution of the Itallian citizen. If there is evidence to suggest otherwise then it should be revealed.
I do not get my information from right-wing blogs that are not vetted for accuracy by experienced editors.

Most blogs are maintained by people who want to express their own opinions and have no interest in fairnes or objectivity. I get my information from more reliable sources such as the AP, BBC, NY Times, CNN, MSNBC, Wash Post, USA Today, Fla. Times-Union, St.

Pete Times, to name just a few.
From what I've read about this case and several unrelated cases involving detentions I'm uneasy taking my government's word at face value. Based on the sources I use it is my opinion that Bilal Hussein should be charged with a crime or released.

It is that simple. this is a war. prisoners do not get sent to criminal court.

the military has never said he is suspected of being an insurgent because of the content of his work. they have not given the reasons he is being detained. are the reasons valid?

I don't know. Perhaps divulging the evidence would also divulge how it was gathered to the bad guys (ie informants, intercepts, etc.) The fact that this is a PJ for AP should not enter into the military's descision making process.

Are our armed forces sometimes guilty of misconduct? Absolutely. I would argue that these instances are rare, and tend to give them the benifit of the doubt.

That said. If after all the evidence is known, it turns out that this was a case of trying to muzzle the press; heads should roll.