Making The News
Should journalists be forced to testify at the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal? BY LAUREN COMITEAU/THE HAGUE Tuesday, Oct. 8, 2002 Should journalists have more legal protection than others when it comes to testifying before war crimes tribunals? That was the issue before five appeals judges at the Yugoslav war crimes Tribunal last week, with lawyers representing 34 media organizations - including Time Inc., CNN, and journalist associations from the Balkans to Africa - arguing they should while war crimes prosecutors made the case against a "special rule of law for journalists." Judges have yet to make a ruling, but with both sides potentially backing away, this could prove to be the test case that never was. In June, the tribunal ordered former Washington Post reporter Jonathan Randal to give evidence in the case of Radoslav Brdjanin, a Bosnian Serb politician on trial for genocide and a massive ethnic cleansing campaign against non-Serbs. In a 1993 article, Randal quoted Brdjanin as saying that he wanted to get rid of Muslims and Croats. Prosecutors wanted to enter the article into evidence, but Brdjanin's lawyers contested its accuracy, leaving prosecutors to call Randal to the witness stand to confirm its contents. But Randal, who initially agreed to appear in court, later refused to testify. His lawyers have argued that by forcing journalists to appear at war crimes trials, they are compromising their ability to gather news and putting other war reporters, and their sources, in danger. If journalists can be "dragged to courts by the coercive power of the subpoena ? it follows in practice that journalists will have less access to information," argued Randal's lawyer Geoffrey Robertson, and that they could lose their "professional claim to neutrality" and be denied access to war zones. He reminded the court of the public service journalists provide in wartime. "Without the work of war correspondents and camera persons bringing home the reality of war atrocities," said Robertson, "this court and the new permanent international criminal court may not have come into being." New York First Amendment lawyer Floyd Abrams, representing the media organizations, said the issue was simple: "Subpoena journalists last." He asked judges to establish a "legal test" for those seeking to subpoena journalists, one that would show that their "information is truly essential" and "that it cannot be obtained elsewhere." Abrams pointed out that the U.S. Department of Justice works with similar guidelines, and that when it seeks a reporter's testimony as a last resort, it often isn't needed at all. "There is, we think, something fundamental at stake," he told judges. "It is nothing less than the ability of the press to cover news in war zones, to interview people who may have committed heinous acts worthy of this court's review." He asked the court to allow reporters to "continue their pursuit of journalistic truth." While not questioning the importance of letting journalists do their jobs, prosecutor Joanna Korner cautioned judges against extending them privileges that aren't granted to others who face "identical risks," such as human rights workers. "We would argue that [the media] is not entitled to a privilege denied to other, more deserving organizations who show impartiality and carry out work at far greater risks to themselves than journalists would like to suppose," she argued. There have been other journalists to appear before this court, including the BBC's Jacky Rowland. She defended her decision to testify against former Yugoslav leader Slobodan Milosevic, saying, "I lived through so many momentous events with the people of the Balkans and felt this was something I ought to do - had to do." While the BBC is one of the news organizations arguing against subpoenaing journalists, Rowland says she doesn't "believe that journalists are exempt from moral obligations or international justice." The Randal case was never about revealing sources or confidential information, making it a poor test case, say many, for journalists' right to silence. Brdjanin's lawyers - who, like Randal, were not at the hearings - are hinting that they may not want to question Randal about the veracity of his article. If that's the case, say prosecutors, then they have no need to call him either. Judges could simply rule that Randal doesn't have to testify against Brdjanin, leaving the bigger issues for another day. http://www.time.com/time/europe/eu/printout/0,9869,362300,00.html Serbian News Network - SNN [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.antic.org/
