Blog

Our Rights are Being Ignored – Is there a lesson here?

 The past three to four years journalists and photojournalists have experienced or witnessed many questionable acts of harassment, and even arrests by government officials.  They were arrested or harassed for being journalist’s or photojournalists.  Forgotten is the fact that without a free press you cannot have a democracy.  One thing these people or legal representatives have in common is the fact that they’ve violated the Constitution and the freedom of the press, as well as its ideology.

The problem here is simple, once the press, that is journalists and photojournalists, are neutralized and essentially taken out of the “Freedom of the Press” equation, essentially there is no longer a checks-and-balance system in place to protect the public from the government, and the very foundation for democracy.

Journalism is both a profession and a craft, since journalists draw on specialized skills and adhere to common standards. So what makes journalism different from other occupations like medicine or law, which could be described in similar terms? Perhaps the greatest difference is the special role the news media play in a free society.

Journalists in a free society not only have certain legal protections, they also have responsibilities.  In some countries, these responsibilities are spelled out, and in others they are implicit.  But in almost every case they amount to the same thing: to keep citizens informed, journalists have a responsibility to provide information that is accurate and reported fairly — and independently — from outside influences.  If the situation is compromised, or attempts made to compromise journalist rights, then democracy no longer exists.

This system is designed to protect the “American citizen” and safeguard their rights.  This keeps the government and other officials who have a diverse responsibility to uphold the laws, to do so within a responsible, legal, and honest manner.

If we assume that when a journalist is threatened or is harassed by government officials or criminals that the journalist is bad, has lied, or untruthful, we as Americans have over stepped the parameters of responsibility.  We have killed the messenger to spite ourselves.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights.  The amendment prohibits the making of any law . . . “abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.”

Originally, the First Amendment applied only to laws enacted by the Congress.   However, starting with Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925), the Supreme Court has held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.  Important here is the fact that Federal law supersedes state or local laws.

Examples within the past 3 to 4 years of violating these laws are plentiful.  Arrested journalists along with their material confiscated and then returned once the Courts intercede, remain plentiful.  This covers the entire realm from college newsletter reporters having their coverage of a small campus “protest” confiscated by local police, to the outright beating to death of a man by a police officer in Fullerton, California, and then the cover-up by local police afterwards, “One-Eyed Cop In Fullerton Beating Death Emerging As a Very Scary Individual.”

Bothersome is the fact that legal entities, ignoring the Constitutional aspect in total (for example “Long Beach Police Trained To Detain Photogs Not Producing Photos of “Esthetic Value” is profound to say the least.  Volumes of books, both philosophical and ideology, as well as artisans’ books on photography have attempted to define “esthetic value” in photography since its origins.  Thereby, we can assume that photographing Rodney King being beaten has no esthetic value, therefore the footage of the beating itself should be confiscated by government or legal officials.  We have fought wars, many had died, to keep this type of behavior by government and legal officials out ofAmerica.

Federal law dominates in this situation, but the harassment and antagonistic behavior by law enforcement in using the local law remains plentiful.  Legal entities calls this irresponsible behavior and a violation of a persons rights, but still done by law enforcement, arrogantly, none the less.

Or the event of the Houstonpolice, “Houston Police Threaten To Arrest Photographers To Protect Their Own,” covering a drunk policeman, one of theirs, from press photographers on the scene filming all the beer cans in the back of his truck, and the open and spilled beer cans in the front seat.  As well, when one photographer filmed the drunk driver of the truck, essentially the policeman going to work drunk, is when the threats and confiscations of the footage developed.  This drunken police officer crashed into a school bus.

These examples are horrible.  Nevertheless, the hundreds more (without exaggeration) are just as horrible as these examples given in this article.  So it is with antagonism toward the offenders this journalist, and Vietnam Veteran, looks on to those who knowingly over ride our constitutional support, indeed for this democracy, in order to attempt some type of persuasion, intimidation, or even the profound attempts at demeaning journalists as a group.

This type of irresponsibility is uncalled for and throughout history has never been this bad, especially in a time when the checks-and-balance process in respect toward our government administrators and legal entities system needs to remain in-place.

The responsibility has been placed on the press, despite the comings and goings of the popularity of the journalists or photojournalists themselves.  A friend once stated to this journalist, when receiving negative feedback from an article against nuclear power on theColumbia River, “If you’re not making enemies as an investigative journalist, then you’re not doing your job right.”

Attempts at punitive measures toward journalists, or covering-up the conduct or crime, especially within questionable behavior by the parties investigated, demonstrates unquestionable guilt by those same parties.  The dynamic becomes toward what extend the punitive measure is developed, how illegal or contrary to law it becomes, to what extent they have used their position of responsibility toward collusion; which only then equates to the overall extent of the cover-up, or put simply, the lie.

Journalists have to “clean” their backyard as well.  What is termed “embedment” and consists of questionable reporters, often locally, that generate bias material in coordination with local authorities.  This amounts to a “cover-up” also, and favors exchanged by both and for favorable articles, are common within this situation.  This is not part of the checks-and-balance system as mentioned in this article, rather, it is part of the questionable conduct presented here, unfavorable by many journalists, as well as create hardships for many independent and honest journalists.

Lawsuits are going to become prevalent soon and in defense of what one can consider our democracy.  Ironically, it’s the taxpayer or common American that looses, as it is our tax money used in an irresponsible manner, in this case by law enforcement and other government officials, which necessitates the legal action to condemn and put a halt to their irresponsible conduct and behavior.

So when a radio announcer or government agency discusses how the press has done them wrong, or how the press should be packaged into a box with narrow parameters and controlled better, think about the veterans, the men and women who have died for this democracy.  Or when someone disputes what the press had to say about them, and in the same conversation speaks outright animosity toward the press, remind them what democracy is all about.  There is nothing perfect about what we do, but it is necessary.

In summation, one thing comes to mind: the fact that those who say they are patriotic Americans while waving our flag, and then violates our Constitution arrogantly and ignore our democracy, in all reality dislike Americans andAmerica.  This is unacceptable both legally and ethically.

References:

Clark, Roy Peter and Cole C. Campbell (eds.) the Values and Craft of American Journalism: Essays From the Poynter Institute.Gainesville,FL: University Press ofFlorida, 2005.

The First Amendment Handbook.Arlington,VA: the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 2003. http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/index.html

Hachten, William A. Troubles of Journalism: A Critical Look at What’s Right and Wrong With the Press.Mahwah,NJ:LawrenceErlbaum Associates, 3rd edition, 2004.

Hamilton, James T. All the News that’s Fit to Sell: How the Market Transforms Information Into News.Princeton,NJ:PrincetonUniversityPress, 2003.

Overholser,Geneva, and Kathleen Hall Jamieson. The Press.New York,NY:OxfordUniversityPress, 2005.

Sloan, W. David and Lisa Mullikin Parcell (eds.) American Journalism: History, Principles, Practices.Jefferson,NC: McFarland & Company, 2002.

Sullivan, Marguerite H. A Responsible Press Office: An Insider’s Guide.Washington,DC:U.S.Department of State, International Information Programs, 2001. http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/pressoffice/

The question of who is winning the war, no matter what war it is, haunts politicians, generals, and the media alike.  No one desires to loose.  History gives us information, consistently, how wars equate to lives lost, and problems as to why the wars existed and how they began.   Significant within this discussion is an explanation of the problems of gathering information for a proper estimate of enemy strength, in order to continue or discontinue the existing strategy during a war.

As crude as it sounds to a civilian population, the premise of war, whether winning it or loosing a war, and without clear territorial objectives, is generally established on a basic principle: “Evidence that shows the United States and its allies are killing more of the enemy than can be thrown into battle.”

An historical outlook of statistics and approach in gathering the intelligence from Vietnam can be cited here.  This serves as good examples of the types of information needed to establish the premise of whether or not the United States was winning the war in Vietnam, or any other war for that matter.  In reality, this is where an “honest press” comes into play, and becomes a very significant “check-and-balance” system keeping our government honest — and at the same time remaining neutral.

Information and Interpretation

History shows this to be consistent when deciding what information to base these assumptions upon, as well as garner debate as to what is acceptable as proper information.  During Vietnam the MACV, the CIA, and the NSA had different perspectives on intelligence gathering, and generating statistics from the same.  This especially when giving the information to the American public.

The question so simple, or so it seems, when one considers it is based upon adding up enemy forces, then subtracting the number killed.  This followed by determining the “cross over point” where allied forces were killing more of the enemy than could be replenished through recruitment and conscription.

Throughout history, to include Afghanistan and Iraq, it is termed the “order of battle” equation.  This is the actual breakdown of intelligence gathered as fact.  As in the current war, and as in Vietnam, this situation was fraught with problems.  The major problem was separating the soldiers from the citizens in what is to be assumed as a “People’s War.”

So the problem arises, can a twelve, or 16 yearold boy for that matter, who plants a roadside bomb, a suicide bomber, or plants a satchel charge underneath an APC, be counted as part of the enemies “combat potential” within the order of battle?  Or if another boy acts as a scout or observer for enemy troops; or this boy’s sixty year old grandmother is doing the same?  Does sheltering and feeding of enemy or guerrilla troops fit into the equation?  Does this also make “killed by attrition” an acceptable equation in assimilating enemy killed in action, evoking a presumptive percentage being the enemy?

Correct Information

But there exist more problems in assimilating correct statistics from intelligence resources.  There always exist debates, in the military and the CIA, for example, and Vietnam being no different, over the number and importance of political cadres and part-time guerrillas when estimating enemy strength.  The communist self-defense militia troops and p/t guerrillas, for example, were not listed and removed from the order of battle statistics in Vietnam, especially when the statistics distributed to the American public.  This was an attempt at political easement, for the public in general to not be quite so militant.  It also started debates between the CIA, NSA, the military, and civilian industry, thereby, one or the other no longer trusted the intelligence of the other.

This journalist, also a Vietnam Veteran, found that the old adage of our government and military always lied to us, to be in error.  It was and still is, as history shows time and time again, our government simply being confused over the facts that existed, how to segregate so much information at times, and where or how to classify and use these same facts; Although, for the sake of argument our government did lie on quite a few occasions in regard to the Vietnam War, that is without a doubt true, ironically, totally seperate from the intelligence factors.

When knowing the information that was available at that time, and is available in current wars, it becomes possible to realize there are simply no winners or losers.  War generates confusion and modern warfare is complicated and often unreasonable statistically.

As well, there is no parameter to measure or classify, in an appropriate manner and statistically, the strength or weakness of our enemy, unless extreme lopsided data available.  Most intelligence is developed by assimilating several contributing factors, followed by an estimated percentage.  This can lead to confusion as well, especially in establishing categorical parameters to develop information into a statistical data base.  For a good example consider the intelligence ratio on accurate data of the WMD situation in Iraq, and the havoc caused from the many false stories presented.

Win or Lose

In Vietnam the United States did not loose any battles and yet withdrew our troops in total in 1975.  The equation of winning or losing the war then becomes arbitrary.  Attributing a win/lose record per battle no longer exists in modern warfare, as the equation in Vietnam shows.  Some of the significant data of the Vietnam War remains unspecific and somewhat confusing at best.

Ironically, intelligence statistics show from 1970 onward, in Vietnam, the U.S.military assimilated a higher KIA ratio with fewer troops in the field.  This was due to better equipment, and then to follow-through and react to the intelligence we obtained.  A North Vietnamsource, NVA General Giap, validates this as truth when several years after the war admitted, “You’re bombing for two more weeks would have destroyed our tunnel infrastructure and system.  This killed a lot of our troops and other support elements in South Vietnam entirely.  There would not have been an invasion.”

The fact is our intelligence was not aware of how vast the tunnel systems were at that time.  Yes, some of the tunnels were confirmed and a few large tunnel situations found, for example a make shift operating room for wounded NVA or VC.  Although, the NSA does attribute speculation toward a vast array or tunnels in the Iron Triangle, but the information not acted upon by the military, considered suspecious information coming from the NSA.

Some argue, in regard to the quality of intelligence in the 70’s, that there existed fewer channels for the intelligence to pass-through, due to troop reduction; thereby, the information was passed to the actual people involved in the operation requiring the info.  The U.S.conducted strikes at “arms-length” rather than infiltrate and attack with ground troops.  Although, it is estimated more American KIA took place in 1971 than at the beginning of the war.

Our intelligence combined with modern versions of equipment used to spy on the enemy, in the 70’s, gave us an assortment of methods for attack.  “We could literally cease a battalion movement while they were still gathering their troops and preparing their equipment for battle.  Several times air strikes decimated entire battalions who were still preparing for the actual battle in their compounds,” Colonel Justin McDowell, Retired, NSA, stated.

One example developed while the NSA was monitoring an NVA company commander.  His location was at the NVA command post, while he discussed their planned attack with other commanders over the radio.  An air strike hit them; the commander’s radio went dead.  Sensor’s showing increased supplies being trucked into the area, electronic tracking capabilities, and airborne technology monitored this event from the beginning, until the actual air strike.  No American troops were placed in jeopardy as the NVA troops never left their compound, KIA..

Competent streams of intelligence existed in Vietnam, just as today in the current war theater of operation.  Often some is passed-along to unqualified or unknowledgeable people.  And just as often, due to being confused about the information, or unsure of its quality, a commander may not pass the information to the appropriate individual in charge of the operation where it would be useful.  The best example being the extensive tunnels in Vietnam and the information during the war at that time, which may still be in a file cabinet and the file marked incorrectly.

There simply exist no easy answers within the intelligence community and disbursement of data.  What obviously should be taken out of the equation is political agendas, manipulated information given to the public, and a new mind-set contrary to conflicts and wars happening at all.  This becoming a “truth” simply will not happen.  So what are the alternatives?  None the less history certainly portrays the intelligence factor to be significant in saving lives during war, at least when handled properly.

References:

Ball, George. The Past Has Another Pattern. Norton, 1982.

Blanfarb, Douglas S. The Counterinsurgency Era. Free Pr., 1977.

Brown, Ens FC. “ThePhoenixProgram: A Postordium.” Military Intelligence (April/June 1977: 8-12.

CBS News. “The Uncounted Enemy. AVietnamDeception.” Broadcast January 23, 1982, Transcript.

______. “TheVietnamNumbers Game.” The Nation, June 26, 1982

Gravel, Senator Mike, ed. “The Pentagon Papers.” 5 vols. Beacon Press, 1971.

O’Neil, Robert J. “The Strategy of General Giap since 1964.” Australian National Univ Pr., 1971.

Summers,Col.Harry G., Jr. “On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War.” Presidio Pr., 1982.