THE HANDSTAND

DECEMBER 2003

Protect
the 'Right to Know'

The following is adapted from remarks to the National Press Club in Washington on Oct. 8.



One of the most insidious pressures on the press today is a pattern of in-creased governmental secrecy and withholding of information. Unfortunately, for many journalists, this has become an unwanted hallmark of the current administration.

Last month, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press issued its fourth edition of a White Paper concerning the war on terrorism's impact on access to information. The report documents hundreds of officially sanctioned compromises of the public's traditional "right to know."

It reflects an unprecedented blend of fear, frustration and anger on the part of many veteran Washington journalists.

Some specifics:

. President Bush has held nine formal press conferences since taking office, far fewer than any recent president. President Clinton had held 33 by this point; the first President Bush had held 61 and President Reagan had held 18.

. An October 2001 memo from Attorney General John Ashcroft shifted the presumption in Freedom of Information requests away from openness and toward secrecy. It assured federal agencies that the Justice Department would support any decision to withhold information if there were any sound legal basis for the failure to disclose. By way of contrast, a 1993 directive from former Attorney General Janet Reno encouraged agencies to err on the side of disclosure.

. In March 2003, Bush issued new, more lenient standards for classifying government documents. The order overturned a Clinton-era policy that documents should not be classified if there was "significant doubt" whether disclosure would harm national security.

. The National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States is a bipartisan commission whose chairman was appointed by the president. Yet its investigations were delayed by the Homeland Security Department. Similarly, a special staff of congressional investigators was hired by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees to do its own investigation of 9/11. In that instance, the White House balked. In both cases, the sought-after information was eventually released, but the process was discouraging at best.

Access to information is essential to a democracy. It is precious to news organizations - maybe especially to print organizations. Often, they have the time, the resources and the patience to undertake lengthy investigations. Sometimes such investigations stretch on because a FOI request is in court. In recent years, at Knight Ridder alone, we have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in several markets with FOI requests. Almost invariably we win. The story is published, and some kind of change or reform is the result.

Tellingly, I think, when Ashcroft made his 16-city Patriot Act tour, he spoke in front of pre-selected crowds of cops and prosecutors and limited press interviews almost exclusively to broadcast (and not print) journalists. When I learned this, I thought immediately of the connection between print and the Freedom of Information Act.

Ashcroft knows its importance to us. He knows how effective we have been in turning it to the benefit of the citizenry. To the extent that he and the Bush administration endeavor to put a lid on it now, all of our freedoms stand to be diminished. Accordingly, we are committed, individually and as an industry, to resist this tide with every tool we can muster.

P. Anthony Ridder
NAA Chairman
Photo: Police in Florida at a recent protest.See article below


Hogtied and Abused at Fort Benning

by Kathy Kelly
 

On Sunday, November 23, I took part in a nonviolent civil disobedience action at Fort Benning, GA, to protest the U.S. Army´s School of the Americas (SOA, now called the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation -- WHISC)


Shortly after more than two dozen of us entered Fort Benning and were arrested, US Military Police took us to a warehouse on the base for "processing." I was directed to a station for an initial search, where a woman soldier began shouting at me to look straight ahead and spread my legs. I turned to ask her why she was shouting at me and was ordered to keep my mouth shut, look straight ahead, and spread my legs wider. She then began an aggressive body search. When ordered to raise one leg a second time, I temporarily lost my balance while still being roughly searched and, in my view, 'womanhandled.' I decided that I shouldn't go along with this dehumanizing action any longer. When I lowered my arms and said, quietly, "I'm sorry, but I can't any longer cooperate with this," I was instantly pushed to the floor. Five soldiers squatted around me, one of them referring to me with an expletive (this f_ _ _ er) and began to cuff my wrists and ankles and then bind my wrists and ankles together. Then one soldier leaned on me, with his or her knee in my back. Unable to get a full breath, I gasped and moaned, "I can't breathe." I repeated this many times and then began begging for help. When I said, "Please, I've had four lung collapses before," the pressure on my back eased. Four soldiers then carried me, hogtied, to the next processing station for interrogation and propped me in a kneeling position. The soldier standing to my left, who had been assigned to "escort" me, gently told me that soon the ankle and wrist cuffs, which were very tight, would be cut off. He politely let me know that he would have to move my hair, which was hanging in front of my face, so that my picture could be taken. I told him I'd appreciate that.

I was then carried to the next station. There, one of the soldiers who'd been part of pushing me to the floor knelt in front of me, and, with his nose about two inches from mine, told me that because I was combative I should know that if I didn't do exactly as instructed when they uncuffed one hand, he would pepper spray me. I asked him to describe how I'd been combative, but he didn't answer. After the processing, I was unbound, shackled with wrist and ankle chains, and led to the section where other peaceful activists, also shackled, awaited transport to the Muskogee County jail.

At our bond hearing on Monday, Nov. 24, a military prosecutor told the federal judge that the military was considering an additional charge against me for resisting arrest. I explained my side of the story to the judge, grateful that there are at least sevreal witnesses upon whom I could call.
The federal judge determined that most of us were "flight risks" and increased by 100% the cash bond required before we could be released, from last year´s $500. to $1000.

Today I have a black eye and the soreness that comes with severe muscle strain. Mostly, I'm burdened with a serious question, "What are these soldiers training for?" The soldiers conducting that search must have been ordered not to tolerate the slightest dissent. They were practicing intimidation tactics far beyond what would be needed to control an avowedly nonviolent group of protesters who had never, in thirteen years of previous actions, caused any disruption during the process of arrest. Bewildered, most of us in the "tank" inside the Muskogee County jail acknowledged that during the rough processing we wondered, "What country do we live in?" We now live in a country where Homeland Security funds pay for exercises which train military and police units to control and intimidate crowds, detainees, and arrestees using threat and force.

This morning's aches and pains, along with the memory of being hogtied, give me a glimpse into the abuses we protest by coming to Fort Benning, GA. As we explore the further invention of nonviolence in our increasingly volatile time, it's important that we jointly overcome efforts to deter our determination to stand together against what Martin Luther King once called, "the violence of desperate men," -- and women.


Kathy Kelly is the founder of Voices in the Wilderness, a human rights group based in Chicago that worked to lift the economic sanctions against Iraq.
For more information, contact HYPERLINK
"mailto:info@vitw.org"info@vitw.org, call (773) 784-8065, or visit
HYPERLINK "http://www.iraqpeaceteam.org/"www.iraqpeaceteam.org or
HYPERLINK "http://www.vitw.org/"www.vitw.org.


Afghan editor flees to safety in Canada
Persecution shows democracy a distant dream, victim fears
  Jake Rupert ©2003 The Ottawa Citizen
"Citizens of Afghanistan will continue to be subject to the repressive social, cultural and political control of sharia law because it gives the judiciary, led by Mr. Shinwari, the power to review all government legislation to make sure it conforms to Islamic law."

A crusading Afghan newspaper editor, whose democratic views prompted Islamic leaders in Kabul to put a bounty on his head, is alive and well and living with his family in Canada after fleeing his home country. Mir Hussain Mahdavi, 31, his wife, and his two daughters, aged seven and five months, arrived in Canada three weeks ago after a harrowing ordeal that observers say demonstrates a lack of commitment to democratic principles in the U.S.-backed transitional government of President Hamid Karzai. Mr. Mahdavi came to Canada after being granted emergency refugee status.

After the Afghan Supreme Court decided to try him for defaming Islam and impose a death penalty this summer, Mr. Mahdavi had been in hiding in Islamabad, Pakistan for several weeks until the United Nation's High Commissioner for Refugees fast-tracked his case. Canadian government officials would not talk about Canada's role in bringing Mr. Mahdavi here, citing concern for his privacy. However, Mr. Mahdavi had no such concerns, provided the place where he is living is not identified. "I am very happy to be in Canada," he said earlier this week through an interpreter. "This is a good country where freedom of speech is a right. "I feel disappointed to leave Afghanistan because we had a new government, and we had high hopes that this government would bring democracy by the people for the people, but, unfortunately this is not the case. "If I thought it would have changed anything, I would have stayed in Kabul and died, but I hold little hope of true democracy coming to Afghanistan."

Mr. Mahdavi, editor of the Kabul weekly Aftab (The Sun), and his assistant, Ali Reza Sistany, were arrested June 17 and charged with violating an Afghan press law prohibiting the publication of material considered defamatory to Islam. They were also charged under sharia law for offending Islam. Aftab, which was started in March 2002, was considered the most progressive newspaper in Afghanistan, employing an independent, objective approach to news reporting and blunt editorial opinions. Mr. Mahdavi published several opinion pieces urging the government to move to a more secular state by separating religion and politics. Furthermore, Mr. Mahdavi wrote and published editorials saying the government had to get rid of several current and former warlords who control important ministries. The paper also urged that more scholars and intellectuals be appointed to key government positions. One of the offending phrases in his paper was: "Religion plus governance is equal to despotism." This article was headlined: "Holy Fascism."

Mr. Mahdavi offended many in Kabul by naming names of people who, in his opinion, should not be in government, accusing some of being murderers, and by pushing for a non-religious, non-military government. This kind of journalism is unheard of in Afghanistan, said John Sifton, Afghanistan researcher with New York City-based Human Rights Watch. Following the arrests of Mr. Mahdavi and Mr. Sistany, police closed the newspaper's Kabul offices and pulled copies of the publication from newsstands.

After a week in jail and under international pressure from the UN and other groups, Mr. Mahdavi and Mr. Sistany, who has since escaped to Norway, were released by Mr. Karzai personally. However, Mr. Karzai said the men would be tried. "We don't consider what they have written to be the freedom of the press" Mr. Karzai told Afghan reporters after ordering the men released. "Sincerely, my opinion is that ... it was a violation of the beliefs of the Afghan people, and they shouldn't have done that." A struggle over how they were to be tried exposed a developing rift in the transitional government's approach to legal issues and system of government. The country's Supreme Court Chief Justice Abdul Hadi Shinwari, regarded as a conservative who wants implementation of full Islamic law, wanted the men tried under sharia law, which would mean death if convicted. The court's more moderate judges and others in government wanted them tried under the press law in a more democratic process, which would mean they would lose their press licence if convicted. This trial took place in early August. Mr. Mahdavi attended, and he was acquitted of offending Islam.

After this however, the court's "fatwah" committee decision to also try Mr. Mahdavi under Islamic law and impose a death sentence was leaked. Several Islamic clerics also pronounced a fatwah on Mr. Mahdavi. A fatwah is a form of religious bounty and anyone who kills a person subject to a fatwah is said to be rewarded in heaven.

With this news, Mr. Mahdavi decided to leave Kabul and Afghanistan immediately. He and his family went to Islamabad and hid out with friends until he was accepted as a refugee in Canada.
Several human rights and press freedom organizations lobbied the UN to help Mr. Mahdavi get to Canada. Abi Wright, Asia program co-ordinator for the Committee to Protect Journalists, which lobbied on behalf of Mr. Mahdavi, said her group has been monitoring a deterioration of press freedom in Afghanistan for the last year. "We've seen an increase in intimidation of journalists, attacks on journalists and suppression of speech," she said. "Mr. Mahdavi was very brave to write and publish the things he did, but he was also very controversial even with journalists in his own country." Mr. Sifton, of Human Rights Watch, said Mr. Mahdavi's plight is an example of just how far away the country is from becoming a fully democratic nation. "Freedom of expression is one of the keys to a democracy," he said. "Many other freedoms flow from it. If they are having problems with this, and Mr. Mahdavi's case shows this to be true, it isn't a good omen for the future."

He said the case shows just how influential Muslim clerics and judges have become in the transitional government because the moderates could not stop the case against Mr. Mahdavi or save him from the fatwah. Mr. Sifton said the country's draft constitution almost guarantees citizens of Afghanistan will continue to be subject to the repressive social, cultural and political control of sharia law because it gives the judiciary, led by Mr. Shinwari, the power to review all government legislation to make sure it conforms to Islamic law. He said if the goal of democracy in Afghanistan is to be met, amendments must be made to narrow the areas of society sharia law will be able to address. "There has to be a clear division between this kind of court and normal courts," he said. "The case of Mr. Mahdavi shows there is no such division right now. And it's not just him. Other journalists are feeling pressure too."

He said police and military in Kabul, and even more so outside the capital, are quelling dissent or perceived anti-Islamic opinion with threats, beatings, robberies and road checkpoint extortions.
Mr. Sifton said the situation was created when religious leaders and warlords who helped the U.S. overthrow the Taliban were rewarded with positions in the transitional government while retaining their military and religious positions. They are now using whatever means they can to retain and amass power leading up to next year's planned elections. These people are ruling using fear, and most people are afraid of them, Mr. Sifton said. When Mr. Mahdavi stood up to them, the fear tactics failed, and when this happened, they used the judiciary as a weapon against him. So deep-rooted is the fear, Mr. Sifton said, Afghans who agreed with Mr. Mahdavi's opinions would not come to his aid or defence because "it would have been suicide" to do so.

For now, Mr. Mahdavi, who is a devout Muslim, is planning on settling his family in his new surroundings, learning English, and looking for ways to support himself. He would like to find a job in journalism, but is willing to take any kind of work. He also plans to start publishing Aftab again on an Internet website, which Afghans will be able to access. He says he hopes one day he will be able to return to Afghanistan, but he is doubtful that day will come. "I think what has happened to me shows that democracy and Islam can be taken advantage of as it has been in Afghan-istan," he said. "World governments should be careful of who they are helping in my country. If they continue to act as they are, all this effort might go to waste."