Journalists Demand USA Cease Hiring Journalists to Spy

[Guest guest]

U.S. Must Ban Journalists Spies

UNITED STATES: IN U.S. SENATE TESTIMONY, CPJ CALLS FOR U.S. BAN ON

RECRUITING JOURNALISTS AS SPIES

Updated on 2002-05-08 20:30:41

 

Washington, D.C., May 2, 2002—In Senate testimony today, a CPJ

representative argued that the U.S. government should never recruit

journalists as spies, and that U.S. intelligence operatives should

never pose as journalists.

 

 

Appearing before the Subcommittee on International Operations and

Terrorism of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, CPJ Washington

representative Frank Smyth underscored the need to maintain an

inviolate firewall between U.S. intelligence agencies and the press.

 

 

"I want to highlight one action that CPJ believes the U.S.

government should never take: Using an American journalist as a CIA

agent," Smyth testified.

 

 

During questioning by subcommittee members, Smyth noted that the CIA

has been barred from using journalists as spies since the 1970s,

although this policy can be overruled through an executive waiver.

In response, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), the subcommittee chair,

said she would seek clarification from CIA Director George Tenet.

 

 

CPJ was asked to testify about what the United States government can

do to ensure the safety of U.S. journalists working overseas

following the recent abduction and murder of Wall Street Journal

reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan.

 

 

Smyth pointed out that, according to CPJ statistics, the risk faced

by U.S. reporters working abroad is fairly small compared to the

risk faced by local reporters. "CPJ research shows that 399

journalists have been killed worldwide while carrying out their

professional work," testified Smyth. "Only seven of them were U.S.

reporters working overseas."

 

 

Concerning the Pearl case, Smyth took the opportunity "to recognize

and commend the U.S. government for the role it has played, and

continues to play, in working with Pakistani authorities to ensure

that the killers of Daniel Pearl are brought to justice."

 

 

But Smyth noted that "this action is appropriate not because Mr.

Pearl was a journalist, but because he was a U.S. citizen who was

the victim of a crime." When it comes to American journalists, Smyth

said, "the U.S. government should take no new specific actions to

protect U.S. journalists working overseas," as any such action might

only jeopardize their perceived neutrality and thus "do more harm

than good."

 

 

Smyth encouraged the subcommittee, along with the rest of the U.S.

government, to speak out about specific press freedom abuses

wherever they occur, and to take active measures to ensure that the

policies and rhetoric of the U.S. government are never used to

justify restrictions on press freedom anywhere.

 

 

---

-----------

 

 

 

 

 

Testimony by the Committee to Protect Journalists

 

 

Subcommittee on International Operations and Terrorism

 

 

Chair, the Honorable Barbara Boxer Senate Foreign Relations

Committee

 

 

May 2, 2002

 

 

Good morning. My name is Frank Smyth, and I am the Washington

Representative of the Committee to Protect Journalists. CPJ is an

independent, non-profit organization based in New York City that

fights for the rights of journalists worldwide to report the news

freely, without fear of reprisal. I would like to place in the

record a copy of our recently published annual report, Attacks on

the Press in 2001, which contains more than 500 individual cases of

attacks against journalists in more than 130 countries. We are

grateful for this opportunity to address this subcommittee.

 

 

I've been asked to talk about what the United States government can

do to ensure the safety of U.S. journalists working overseas. This

is, of course, an important issue, and the recent abduction and

murder of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Pakistan

dramatically illustrates the risks that U.S. journalists confront.

Nevertheless, according to CPJ's statistics, the risk faced by U.S.

reporters working abroad is fairly small compared to the risk faced

by local reporters, particularly those covering corruption, human

rights abuses, and military operations. These journalists are often

targeted in direct reprisal for what they write or broadcast. During

the past decade, our research shows that 399 journalists have been

killed worldwide while carrying out their professional work. Only

seven of them were U.S. reporters working overseas.

 

 

While I would like to briefly address the issue of the safety of

U.S. journalists overseas, I plan to devote the bulk of my allotted

time to discussing the larger threat to press freedom around the

world, specifically CPJ's concern that the events of September 11

and the subsequent U.S. military response have precipitated a global

press freedom crisis.

 

 

I would like to take this opportunity to recognize and commend the

U.S. government for the role it has played, and continues to play,

in working with Pakistani authorities to ensure that the killers of

Daniel Pearl are brought to justice. However, we believe that this

action is appropriate not because Daniel Pearl was a journalist but

because he was a U.S. citizen who was the victim of a crime. In

fact, we are hard pressed to think of any other action that the U.S.

government might take to protect U.S. journalists that would not do

more harm than good. U.S. journalists reporting from dangerous areas

around the world—particularly those places where the actions of the

U.S. government have stirred local anger—rely on their perceived

neutrality to keep them safe. Thus, efforts by the U.S. government

to protect U.S. journalists overseas risk having the unintended

effect of further endangering the journalists, if those efforts

create the impression that U.S. journalists are somehow linked to

the U.S. government.

 

 

I want to highlight one action that CPJ believes the U.S. government

should never take: Using an American journalist as a CIA agent. We

call on the U.S. government to reiterate its commitment to never

recruit U.S. journalists as spies or government agents. We also call

on the CIA and other government agencies to enforce a firm policy:

that it will never permit CIA agents to pose as U.S. journalists

during undercover operations. Furthermore, we would like to see this

policy expanded to bar the use of non-U.S. journalists as spies. The

perception ­ or even the rumor ­ that a local journalist works with

the CIA would obviously put him or her at considerable risk.

 

 

 

 

We have also been concerned that around the world, repressive

regimes have appropriated the rhetoric of the war of terrorism to

justify the suppression of domestic criticism and curtail press

freedom. In other instances, authoritarian governments appear to

have taken advantage of the fact that the world's attention was

elsewhere to launch domestic crackdowns. In Eritrea, for example,

the government of President Isaias Afewerki shut down the

independent press and jailed 13 journalists in a crackdown that

began shortly after September 11.

 

 

In Nepal, the government in November branded as "terrorists" anyone

who supports the country's Maoist rebels and imposed emergency

regulations that have been used to harass and persecute journalists

who report on rebel activities or who work for publications seen as

sympathetic to the Maoist cause. Dozens of journalists have been

detained since the declaration of the state of emergency.

 

 

Similarly, Chinese officials have characterized independence

activists in the Muslim-majority region of Xinjiang as "terrorists,"

targeting journalists and other intellectuals as part of a recently

intensified crackdown on the separatist movement.

 

 

In Malaysia, the Home Ministry has repeatedly blocked the

distribution of international publications—including Time and

Newsweek—that published articles about the activities of Islamic

militants within the country who may have links to the al-Qaeda

terrorist network.

 

 

In Kyrgyzstan, President Askar Akayev has used the threat of

international terrorism and the growing number of U.S. troops as

excuses to curb political dissent and suppress the independent and

opposition media.

 

 

And in Zimbabwe, Information Minister Jonathan Moyo has described

the independent press as "terrorists" and specifically cited U.S.

actions in justifying an independent media crackdown there. "We are

watching events in the United States and Britain closely as

pertaining to media freedom," said Moyo last year, according to a

local report. "These countries, especially the U.S.A., have

unashamedly limited press freedom since September 11 in the name of

safeguarding the national interest . . .If the most celebrated

democracies in the world won't allow their national interests to be

tampered with, we will not allow it too."

 

 

This is clearly an opportunistic response by Mr. Moyo, who

spearheaded the efforts to curtail the independent press in Zimbabwe

long before September 11. Nevertheless, it is sad that Mr. Moyo is

seeking to justify his government's repressive measures by citing

U.S. government policy. In fact, CPJ has criticized the U.S.

government in several cases for taking actions that we believe set a

very poor precedent internationally. Specifically, CPJ expressed

concern about efforts by the State Department to censor a Voice of

America broadcast last year that included a telephone interview with

the Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar. Later, Congress formally

restricted the VOA from airing any such "terrorist" views. The U.S.

government also tried to control broadcasts abroad. Last October,

Secretary of State Colin Powell asked the Emir of Qatar to use his

influence to rein in Al-Jazeera, the Arabic-language satellite

station that is broadcast out of Qatar and financed by its

government. Secretary Powell's request was followed by a formal

diplomatic démarche by the U.S. embassy in Qatar. In conclusion,

while we believe that the U.S. government should take no new

specific actions to protect U.S. journalists working overseas

(because such action could do more harm than good), we believe there

are actions that the U.S. government should take to uphold and

support press freedom around the world. Specifically, we believe

that the U.S. government should speak out against specific abuses

and take active measures to ensure that the policy and rhetoric of

the U.S. government is never used to justify repressive actions

against journalists anywhere.

 

 

CPJ is grateful for this opportunity to address this important

matter.