Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein is welcomed by his
family members after being released from a U.S. military prison
in Baghdad, Iraq, April 16, 2008. The U.S. military released Hussein
on Wednesday after holding him for more than two years without
filing formal charges. (AP Photo/Petr David Josek)Source
CBS news reports from Baghdad today the release of Bilal Hussein.
"Hussein, 36, was freed at a checkpoint in Baghdad, where he was taken by the military aboard a prisoner bus. He left U.S. custody wearing a traditional Iraqi robe and appeared in good health. The U.S. military had accused Hussein of links to insurgents, but did not file specific charges. In December, military authorities brought Hussein's case into the Iraqi court system for possible trial. ....."I want to thank all the people working in AP. ... I have spent two years in prison even though I was innocent. I thank everybody," Hussein said after being freed. ...AP President Tom Curley said Hussein "is safely back with AP and his family, and it is a great relief to us." .."Our heartfelt thanks to all of you who supported us during this difficult and challenging period," Curley said. "Bilal will now be spending some quiet time with his family and resting up." ...Hussein and the AP denied any improper contacts, saying Hussein was doing the normal work of a photographer in a war zone. He was detained by U.S. Marines on April 12, 2006 in Ramadi, about 70 miles west of Baghdad. ..Hussein was a member of the AP team that won a Pulitzer Prize for photography in 2005, and his detention drew protests from rights groups and press freedom advocates................"He now joins a growing list of journalists detained in conflict zones by the U.S. military for prolonged periods and eventually released without any charges or crimes ever substantiated against them," said Simon. "This deplorable practice should be of concern to all journalists. It basically allows the U.S. military to remove journalists from the field, lock them up and never be compelled to say why.""
Comment: While that may be true, that the photographer is indeed innocent, we do really not know either way, except there was no solid evidence. Catch 22!
Should we assume that the US Military is wrong in this warzone where one is not sure of anyone. To be amongst insurgents and not ransomed, shot or beheaded is pretty lucky anyway! So if not a collaborator, he is either foolhardy or very brave in his dedication to the AP news service. Maybe, if truth be known, it's an ever reforming combination of motivations. Still we live in a system of laws with checks and balances.
Getting pictures of insurgents with guns at the heads of hostages/captured enemy is bound to arouse the suspicion of the military. Certainly, the US military is used to seeing a connection between Al Queda and Al Jazeera New Service. There have been suspicions even that some of their newsmen where really Al Queda operatives. To be sure, the CIA is not likely to be innocent in that activity either. What CBS fails to do is even to consider that Bilal Hussein was indeed collaborating with "the enemy" as accused but there was insufficient evidence. When obvious staging occurs, as in the tragic Lebanon war, it was easy to see brand new dolls and children's toys in bombed areas but with no dust on the toys or else the exact same people who were "dead" in one scene, was a rescuer in another. In Bilal's case, just because one is Arab and has a name Hussein, does not mean the fellow is guilty. For sure it's easier to work with the insurgents if one speaks Arabic and is Muslim, but that's surely not evidence. What was disturbing to the US Military was the ease with which he was able have friendly access to the insurgents to set up and photograph them. There is no indication that his pictures were taken with long lenses and a possibility that there was social interaction. Again, that is no crime!
So for sure, to our way of thinking, according to civil law, a man is
always innocent until proven guilty. Still, given the recent abuses in staging scenes for the press, it's perhaps not surprising that the US military would at least be suspicious.
Still the lack of critique by the CBC and AP news service to entertain any
possible wrongdoing is unbalanced.
Judicial Activism or Not? Interestingly, it was the Iraqi judicial system, trained, set up and nurtured by American Jurists, that released him! That alone id pretty astonishing. It shows independent thinking for sure. Could it be a foretaste of what the US Legal system might do with Guantanimo prisoners once they are transferred to the US mainland?