U.S. Military holds photojournalist for one year without filing charges

[ellis_vener_photography]

A year after his detention, an Associated Press photographer is still

being held prisoner by U.S. military officials who

have yet to formally charge him with a crime.<P>

 

More at <a href=http://tinyurl.com/2qcar7>www.editorandpublisher.com</a>

[rightimage]

Regarding Ellis Vener's original post: This is a legitimate news story of particular interest to photographers and journalists who expect and enjoy First Amendment rights, even in a country (and world) in conflict (i.e. basically everyone reading this website). (Of course the fact that it was Ellis who posted it doesn't hurt, either.)

 

Regarding the debate following Ellis' original post: Constructive debate and information-sharing on civic matters is a good thing in whatever medium it uses, but there's a reason photo.net would be about the last place I would want to engage in such a debate. And, with all due respect to my fellow photo.netters, the above posts are great examples of why...

[see_r]

Ellis,

 

I have read the article and must conclude that it, along with this discussion, is largely of a political nature rather than photographic. The idea that he may or may not have taken photographs that were synchronized with insurgent explosions in a volatile region of Iraq is supporting material...not the gist of the story. It actually doesn't come up for several paragraphs. It's not that the story is uninteresting, but photography is more of a tangential subject here.

[see_r]

Well, I had missed the part about Hussein being an award winning photographer. Perhaps I should have said that photography is, rather than tangential, a secondary subject. Certainly photography is not the primary subject, an idea supported, among other things, by "integral to the narrative is the fact that he is held captive for an year due to state sanctioned lawlessness."

[see_r]

I see that some of the content has been deleted here, sort of rendering my comments obsolete. If the forum moderator so chooses, perhaps it is ok to delete my posts too unless they are somehow still helpful.

[jim philopena]

Jonathan,

 

Please remember, the US constitution does not apply outside the US. So, this photographer does not have 1st Amendment rights while in Iraq.

 

I will not get in an arguement on what the US is doing is right or wrong in this or any other case. But leave it said that a great many rights and liberties were removed by the sitting legislature in the US under the guise of the Patriot Act.

[rightimage]

That's a fair enough clarification, James.

 

I didn't intend to imply that foreign citizens in foreign countries would enjoy First Amendment protections under the U.S. Constitution, but rather intended to remind ourselves how the general war-time situation can put expected rights and liberties in tension with (supposed?) national interests, and sometimes with less-than-satisfactory remedies of due process, whether an American citizen or not.

 

Regardless of Mr. Hussein's citizenship status, most (photo)journalists could reasonably expect a certain level of deference on behalf of the American government toward any legitimate journalists. This particular case constitutes an important footnote to that expectation.