Guantanamo coverage to be restricted

WASHINGTON -- Although the Defense Department has invited journalists and human rights observers to the terrorism trials that began this week at the Guantanamo Bay naval base, the department has also imposed a censorship policy that limits the openness of the first military commissions since World War II.

Facing skepticism about whether the commissions will be just, the military has repeatedly cited the presence of observers to demonstrate a commitment to fairness. That defense was on display at a news conference yesterday, when the legal adviser to the commission's appointing authority, Brigadier General Thomas L. Hemingway, was asked about translation problems at preliminary hearings.

"I think the public has been able to see that these proceedings are open, that there's transparency, that counsel on both sides are capable, and that the government is doing everything we possibly can to see that any issues with translation are properly resolved," Hemingway said..

But the military has also imposed strict limitations on how much of the proceedings the public will see or read about.

Although the observers are at the base, portions of the trials are closed to them. Network cameras and news photographers are not allowed in the courtroom. A military security officer can go through photographs and footage, and can order the deletion of images deemed sensitive.

Each of the observers also had to sign a five-page list of "ground rules." They agree not to publish or discuss anything mentioned in open court that the presiding officer decides should have been kept secret. The military reserves the right to seize notebooks from human rights observers.

The notebook seizure policy was to have applied to reporters as well, but they strongly objected. The presiding officer compromised: Reporters would cross out such information in their own notebooks while a military press officer looks on.

The penalty for failure to comply: Both the reporter and the news organization would lose access to the commissions.

Colonel David McWilliams, a spokesman at Guantanamo, said the restrictions are necessary for reasons of national security. For example, he said, a witness in open court might inadvertently reveal an active intelligence source or a classified operation.

"The restrictions are only those essential for force protection, information security, or operational security," McWilliams said. "I emphasize the 'essential.' We're being very careful not to throw up artificial barriers."

Jane Kirtley, a professor of media ethics and law at the University of Minnesota, said she recognized the argument that the public would know even less if journalists did not agree to abide by military conditions. Still, she criticized the arrangement of reporters allowing the military to retroactively declare off-limits information that came out in open trial as a step too far.

"I'm really troubled by the notion of journalists agreeing to restrictions of this nature in exchange for access," Kirtley said. "It seems to me that this is very different from an ongoing military operation where reporting real-time information would actually endanger the mission. A trial is very different."

So far, the restrictions remain largely theoretical. There have been several closed sessions this week during Defense Department questioning of commission members, and McWilliams said some network footage of a news conference was erased when officers realized that Guantanamo security badges, which are not supposed to be shown, were in view.

The hearings have been about trial motions, not evidence, so there has been no use of the retroactive editing of protected information. But Kirtley said reporters should still tell viewers or readers about the restrictions in every story.

"Every time a journalist makes a concession like this, it means that the public is going to get less information than they normally would," Kirtley said.

Ken Hurwitz, president of Human Rights First, said that it is too early to tell whether the same policy will prevent human rights observers from doing their jobs.

"Of course they're using us as window dressing," Hurwitz said. "The point is, obviously, we're doing the best we can."

His group's representative, Deborah Pearlstein, said that the military officials involved in the commissions "seem to be really good, decent people, people who are trying to do the right thing," even as she criticized the "impossibly bad and flawed" system.