Military judge won’t allow TV coverage of Gitmo 9/11 trial
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico — A military judge has denied a request to allow television broadcast coverage of the Guantanamo Bay war-crimes tribunal for five men charged in the Sept. 11 attacks.
Defense lawyers requested TV coverage of proceedings at the U.S. base in Cuba. But the Defense Department had authorized only closed-circuit broadcast to several military bases in the northeastern United States.
The ruling from Army Col. James Pohl said the court had no authority to allow general broadcast. A Pentagon spokesman declined comment yesterday.
Defense attorney James Connell said the public should be able to view proceedings against five men accused of planning and aiding the attacks. A hearing in the case is scheduled for January but the trial is expected to be at least a year away.
Also see: Guantanamo judge: no TV broadcast of USS Cole trial
Tags: broadcasting, cameras in courtroom, criminal trials, military and the media, Sept. 11, terrorism
2 Responses to “Military judge won’t allow TV coverage of Gitmo 9/11 trial”
The First Amendment Center is an educational organization and cannot provide legal advice.
Ken Paulson is president and chief executive officer of the First Amendment Center at Vanderbilt University and in Washington, D.C. Previously, Paulson served as the editor and senior vice president/news of USA Today.
Gene Policinski, senior vice president and executive director of the First Amendment Center and president and chief operating officer of the Diversity Institute, is a veteran journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and online.
John Seigenthaler founded the First Amendment Center in 1991 with the mission of creating national discussion, dialogue and debate about First Amendment rights and values.
Dr. Charles C. Haynes is director of the Religious Freedom Education Project at the Newseum. He writes and speaks extensively on religious liberty and religion in American public life.
David L. Hudson Jr. is an expert in First Amendment issues who writes for firstamendmentcenter.org and for other publications. Hudson teaches law and was a scholar at the First Amendment Center.
Tiffany Villager is director/First Amendment studies at the First Amendment Center, which she joined in 1993. She also served as the center’s research manager and research coordinator, and developed the center’s library.
There are no war crimes tribunals at Guantanamo – they are military commissions. The government (and Congress) may claim the offences are “war crimes,” but so far all of the charges have failed in one way or another, either because they weren’t valid under International Humanitarian Law, or the alleged conduct occurred outside of war; took place where no state of war existed; occurred in circumstances where the US was not involved; or simply because the charges did not apply to the conduct of the person charged. It is very foolish for the media to accept the government’s false characterisation of the tribunals.
Incorrect. The have not “all failed.” The only charges of which anyone has been convicted are conspiracy and material support for terrorism. The latter charge has failed, in the DC Circuit (see Hamdan v US, October 16, 2012). Conspiracy is still up for grabs – though it very solidly has never truly qualified as a law of war offense.
The debate is not around whether these are “war crimes tribunals” or “military commissions.” To my knowledge, that distinction is without a difference. The debate (among many others surrounding military commissions) is about whether the crimes charged in the on-going trials are traditional law of war offenses (e.g., is conspiracy?), whether there actually was a war going on at the time of the allegedly offensive conduct, and whether the charged individuals are “unprivileged enemy belligerents” subject to the law of war under the Military Commissions Act.