Ground Zero Barriers

Taken on 9.9.11:

The Dangers of Objective Journalism Within The Age of Terrorism



The Dangers of Objective Journalism Within

The Age of Terrorism

By

Jared Feldschreiber

“Anna Politkovskaya brought more damage to Russia by her death than by her work”

Russian President Vladimir Putin

Terrorism is the unlawful uses of a threat of violence against society to further a political or social objective. It is generally accepted as a means to intimidate and coerce governments and its officials to modify behavior and its policies. According to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, one “cannot bring an end to terror around a negotiating table, because the motive of terror is to exact a surrender by terrorizing the other side.”# To fight terrorism, according to Netanyahu, one should never surrender, have an elaborate intelligence system apparatus in play, and maintain a well-organized early warning system.#

Numerous journalists and commentators often cite the difficult role objectivity plays while covering terrorism, since the nature and genesis of media coverage is often prone to sensationalism. Yet, if exercised with professionalism and integrity, the freedom of press ought to be one of the most cherished rights in all democracies. Columnist Charles Krauthammer warns that “terrorists are rather resourceful about creating new theatrical productions; every year or two they come up with a new variant that captures the media’s imagination… we should remember that not all terrorism is dependent on the media. When we discuss terrorism we are really talking about four different kinds of political violence.”#

As this essay will demonstrate, Chechen rebels in Russia infused the specter of terrorism to their operations in the 1990s, forcing the Russian government to employ a counter-terrorism strategy. While covering one of its operations, the 2nd Chechen War, Russian journalist Anna Politkovskaya objectively gave voice to the country’s enemies, which in turn made her an enemy in the “war on terror” approach employed by President Vladimir Putin. This essay will also show how the Russian government, specifically Putin, compromised the international tenets of journalism through accepted draconian policies, and the effective moral dilemmas created by a quest for “ultimate” security, resulting in the suppression of freedom. As Alain Besancon said, “perhaps our real problem here is not so much defining terrorism as understanding the effect that terrorism publicized by the media can have on society. After all, most terrorism is undertaken in order to arouse the sympathy of society.”

The media’s role in covering terrorism is a societal difficulty since the media is often prone to sensationalism, whilst negating objectivity. It is the journalist’s job to be objective, and yet some governments often suppress the free press for fear of compromising security. In democratic countries, the free press is a right, which should be protected, and yet in Russians, journalists are often prohibited from openly unmasking the underbelly of government in order to uncover terrorism objectively. As terrorism is often morphed by the military apparatus at play, this is where the objectivity of journalism can be construed as contradictory to its lofty ideals of seeking truth. This makes it extremely difficult for journalists effectively do their jobs, and even has journalists often fearing their lives.

Anna Politkovskaya, who spent her career covering the war in Chechnya, Chechen terrorists, and flawed counter-terrorist operations conducted by Russia, was killed in a shroud of mystery. Many believe Russian authorities were behind her murder. It has yet been proven, as she had “enemies” on both sides of the conflict, yet many fear that her murder had been covered up by Russian authorities. Journalists in free societies must be objective, and yet in the post 9/11 world of modern societies fighting Islamic terrorism, the dangers are more acute for journalists, as they are often accused of aiding, or at least attempting to create sympathy for them.

Poltkovskaya had covered the rise and reign of Russian President Vladimir Putin, and became a virulent critic to his counter-terror methods against Chechen rebels. Putin’s consolidated rule had been condemned by Politkovskaya as using his “dirty little war,” against the Chechens to create a front of security. Journalists often are unwittingly complicit with the enemy, and as Krauthammer titles his article “partners in crime.” Ironically, in this essay Krauthammer says “the media are not entirely at fault. They do what comes naturally, covering the unusual, the dramatic; and the new terrorist exploits this to get his message out. The media cannot help being enlisted… One is not asking the media to ignore terrorism, simply not to celebrate it. They can report the occurrence of political theater without disseminating the production, through the intelligent exercise of some restraint… nor is self-restraint the enemy of press freedom… the second modest proposal since the media cannot totally prevent themselves from being used by terrorists, they should at least avoid rationalizing or apologizing for them…”# Although Politkovskaya did not apologize for “terrorists,” she was certainly condemned for it.

Politkovskaya covered the Chechen war between 2002-2004 in her newspaper Novaya Gazeta and later chronicled in her book, A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya. She recorded the unlawfulness committed by Russian soldiers, who sought to obliterate Chechen fighters. This was the message that came directly from Putin. Since Chechen rebels are linked with Al Qaeda, branded as terrorists, aptly as their actions suggest, Putin has been validated to fight them under “just war” principles. Nonetheless, the objectivity of the job of the journalist to unmask truths about organizations, however the subject matter, Politkovskaya’s candid account likely riled Russian authorities, who were waging a “war on terror.” Putin set up a counter-terrorist apparatus in place against the Chechens when he became President in 2000, and his methods were meant to disrupt their capabilities.

In the 21st century, Islamic terrorism is the gravest threat facing Western countries, including the United States, Europe and Israel. The Russians have been seeking to dismantle Chechen rebels for two decades, waging two bitter wars. Chechens continue to attack inside Russia. As a columnist, Politkovskaya was at odds with Putin’s “war on terror” methods, depicting a ruthless former KGB officer and head of the Federal Security Service (FSB) as a hybrid system, in which democracy in Russia was impeded.# Politkovskaya’s work with the newspaper Novaya Gazeta investigated the crimes and human rights abuses of the federal and Moscow- installed authorities in Chechnya and in Russia. She was an outspoken critic of the war in Chechnya, and often gave illuminating insights. When Putin launched an overwhelming military campaign in Chechnya, it was conducted under the label of an anti-terrorist operation but it was as reported: “the start of a second brutal war killed as many as one-hundred thousand people.”# In 2000, President Putin set in motion a counterterrorism initiative against Islamists seeking a separate state. He centralized his power to conduct the battle of international terrorism and religious fanatics. Some feared this was merely a ploy to prove he was a stalwart buttress against Islamic extremism, absolving himself and his military apparatus from violations of torture and other questionable tactics. It is true that during his tenure, Chechen terrorist attacks in Russia were rampant, underscoring the need for heightened security measures.

Once Russia established direct rule of Chechnya in May 2000, Chechen militant resistance throughout the North Caucasus region continued to inflict heavy Russian casualties, and the number of terrorist attacks increased. As a result, both Chechen terrorism as well as widespread human rights violations by Russian and separatist forces, equally drew international condemnation. It is possible to view the blurring of the lines between the needs for security with open and transparent reporting.

President Putin built his career as a proponent of security as the backbone of his presidency, positioning himself in the global fight against terrorism, aligning himself with US President Bush in the post-September 11th era. Putin used his experience as an officer in the Committee for State Security (better known as KGB), controlling all federal politics. “The President’s explicitly stated jurisdiction for all of these changes was to fight terrorism.”#

Putin’s rationale for fighting radical Islamists could be reasoned by the principles of “Just War Theory.” Just War Theory has two sets of criteria: jus ad bellum and jus in bello. The former enables for just cause, the reason for going to war needs to be just, and this case Putin had reason to eradicate terror threats to his homeland by Chechnya. Jus in bello also deals with distinction, proportion and military necessity.”#

Politkovskaya’s career as a war correspondent in Chechnya, and her reportage on Russia’s counter-terrorist methods did not win her any government friends. By the time of her mysterious murder, according to Russian newspapers, Putin was quoted as saying, that she “brought more damage to Russia by her death than by her work,”# raising the question evermore about who killed her. It was universally accepted that her expose of the crisis in Chechnya was a threat to Putin’s view of homeland security.

Putin’s answer may have contributed to the inadequate investigation of her murder, but also to the subsequent killings of two of Politkovksa’s close colleagues, Natalya Estemirova and Stanslav Markelov. Markelov was a lawyer working on Chechen cases in Moscow where he was killed in January, 2009. Estemirova worked as a human rights activist and journalist in Grozny until July 2009 when she was killed. Terrorists consider most free nations and its people as their enemies. Thus, countermeasures, in the name of security must be coordinated by its government apparatus, perhaps alleviating some blame toward Putin from possible implications in their deaths. However, the role of an objective journalist should be protected by that very same system, which is seeking to secure all of its population. Thus, murder, always inexcusable, is amplified by a skewed political agenda in the face of a terrorist threat. Objective journalism finds the difficulty in meshing with this political apparatus in the age of terror. It is almost more of an indictment that Islamists did not claim responsible for Politkovskaya’s murder.

In light of this specter of terrorism, journalists have not been protected. More than a dozen Russian journalists have been killed during the tenure of Putin. Oksana Chelysheva, who is both a journalist and human rights activist, mostly seeking to carry on Politkovskaya’s memory describes the milieu in Russia: “There is a lot of evidence that Russia has moved toward autocracy and few signs of real democracy survive. Anna Politkovskaya was one of the toughest critics of the current state of things here in Russia and the situation in the North Caucuses. She revealed a lot of crimes, in which both pro-Moscow Chechen armed forces and federal agents were involved. “#

Chelysheva says that the Chechen conflict is quite difficult, mainly due to its unpopularity, even in a post 9-11 mindset. There is a government dictate, as an “attempt of the Russian authorities to silence the situation in Chechnya… you see it’s a real mockery to expect that people who became victims of human rights abuses and war crimes would speak openly to foreign journalists when they are surrounded with the Russian military.”# Clearly, non-foreign journalists in Russia are just as vulnerable.

In A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya, Politkovskaya highlights the brutality of the Russian invasion into Chechnya, as Putin’s guise, waging an anti-terror campaign. In reality, Politovskaya exposes the face of the nature of the war as merely a battleground of torture and war crimes perpetrated by Russian authorities. She blames Putin head-on for allowing these atrocities: “Life in Grozny (Chechnya) falls into two categories: ‘free and ‘blockaded,’ she writes. “There has been a disproportionately large military contingent of nearly one hundred thousand, opposing the Chechen population of six hundred thousand through murders, torture, and kidnapping… the purges continue, the commerce in living and dead bodies by soldiers as the principal military operation in Chechnya hasn’t ended, and thousands of people search for their kidnapped relatives and, in the best case, ransom, their corpses from those who defend the Motherland from terrorism.”#

Putin’s war against Chechen Islamists in Chechnya was seen as understandable, even sympathetic to most Western countries, defending Russia’s security, and in defense of Article 51, the right of self-defense. The United States aligned itself with Putin against an asymmetrical enemy. Politkovskaya depicts a different story:

“There is only one principle guiding the birth of these fighters: the more people get humiliated and hurt, the more units are formed. These units were born in the war, recruiting from Chechens who never thought of fighting before and were even hoping for the Russian troops to come and liberate them from the Wahhabis. Small units are supported mostly by the army inside Chechnya. Of course there is more precise description of the situation: its secret financing of the Chechen civil war is in connection with antiterrorist needs. Any secret service in the world would verify that it is better to destroy the enemy by someone else’s hands than your own. This idyllic coexistence is, of course, quite unique in Chechnya… Kremlin’s control of the smoldering conflict in Northern Caucasus is its main governmental policy… there are more and more corpses every day.”#

Politkovskaya depicts a ruthless dictator Putin as manipulating his role as leader, and in effect forsaking his country’s democracy, in support of a consolidation of power. Putin was elected president in 2000, after serving as a vital officer in the KGB. At the same time, the Federal Security Service (FSB) rose to prominence. He then had rested his candidacy on security, to thwart terrorist attacks by Chechens. At the time, the FSB hunted down foreign spies with any links to Chechen terrorists. This would soon get murkier, and more corrupt as “the rule of law remains a distant goal in today’s Russia, where the security services have concluded that their interests, and those of the state they are guarding, remain above the law. The mindset of Russia’s security services has undeniably been shaped by tsarist and Soviet history: they are suspicious, inward looking, and clannish…”#

As an objective journalist Politkovskaya demonstrated that Russia prioritized national security over civil rights. In 2002, Chechen rebels took a theater in Moscow and held its audience hostage. By the time the Russian unit was called in, it became a botched rescue attempt, as Russian Special Forces pumped an unknown gas into the theater’s ventilation system. Most of the hostage-takers died in the incident, but so too many of the hostages. Not only had this been viewed as a counter-terrorism failure for Russia, but also a case of excessive recklessness. The authorities were accused of lack of concern for the ultimate well-being of the hostages, but more as a Machiavellian demonstration that the ends justify the means, in which case the hostage-takers were exterminated. The difficulty for an objective journalist in this case is honestly surveying and reporting the motive, and outcome, on both sides.

To his credit, Putin put into place various laws to broaden the powers of law enforcement officials, but simultaneously diminished freedoms of the press. Human rights campaigners have long decried this situation, and estimate that since September 1999; as many as five thousand people have disappeared and are feared dead. In 2005, according to Amnesty International, Russian officials state that approximately two thousand as the official figure for disappearances since late 1999. There remains a mystery how and why Politkovskaya, both an enemy of Putin and of Chechen rebels, was shot dead in her apartment building on October 7, 2006. Chechen separatists have wanted independence for more than a decade, and she had her enemies there, but the Kremlin remains both silent, and threateningly evasive about this tragedy.

The murder of Anna Politkovskaya remains a tragedy, riddled with mystery, begging the question whether journalists can be objective and protected by democracies in an age of terrorism. As demonstrated in this essay, Putin put into motion a series of steps to counter terrorism within his country, all the while silencing potential critics. There remains a sensationalist approach to covering terrorism, as the Munich Olympic Games in 1972 demonstrate, which captured its riveting -- albeit painful seconds--- live on television for the first time. Herein remains the difficulties, and ethics, of journalists covering terrorism. Democratic governments must uphold the right of free-press; yet it did not protect Anna Politovskaya. Her death remains a painful blight on Russia, even as it understandably wages its “war on terror.” Suppression of the rights of journalists, in quest of documenting true events must not be allowed to exist in the modern age of international terrorism.

Sources:

1. Chelysheva, Oksana: “The Killing of Russian Journalists”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOqTEtV5JMM

2. Chelysheva, Oksana. Anna Politkovskaya. One Voice Amid Silence:”

3. Kahn, Jeffrey: “Vladimir Putin and the Rule of Law in Russia”

4. Kahn, Jeffrey. “Russia’s Dictatorship of Law and the European Court of Human Rights

5. Krauthammer, Charles “Partners in Crime”

6. Lipman, Maria http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalizationinstitutions_government/politkovskay a_3993.jsp

7. Netanyahu, Benjamin “Terrorism and the Media.” How the West Can Win

8. O‘Sullivan, John “Deny Them Publicity”

9. Politkovska, Anna. A Small Corner of Hell: Dispatches from Chechnya

10. Soldatov, Andrei, Borogan, Irina “Russia’s New Nobility”

11. http://russiaprofile.org/politics/a1213293768.html

Don't Forget Gilad

Don’t Forget Gilad

The lingering issue ignored by the world community, particularly in light of this new diplomatic impasse between the US and Israel is the kidnapping of Israeli Corporal Gilad Shalit. The subject of Israeli boundaries are of course paramount to the country’s security, but harsher criticism should be directed at the world’s silence to international law violations perpetrated by Hamas against Shalit. This terror group has broken all international norms to this prisoner of war, denying him access to meet with the Red Cross.. This is both an abomination and a blight to the international community, which often prides itself on being humane, committed and compassionate to the world’s problems.

The bigger issue of whether or not to release thousands of potential terrorists seems to be a moot point now, as Israel has done it before in the past. Many Israelis are exasperated with its government, which obstinately refuses to comply with a swap (but as Golda Meir once articulated, it would be “blackmail of the worst kind.“) By the middle of next month, it will be five years since Shalit was kidnapped.

“Not a day goes past when we don’t hope for news that our son will be retuned to us and we as a family can begin rebuilding our lives together,” says his father Noam.

Amidst this new rift between Israel and United States over border disputes, the inhumanity of the kidnapping, and sheer indifference by the world community remains sickening. It is as if we have lost our values, cynically believing that this is merely a tactic by an asymmetrical enemy of Israel. No, this is a war crime.

Shalit, who will be 25 in August, was kidnapped by Hamas in June 2006, just prior to the Lebanon War. His capture and Hamas’s refusal to allow any independent humanitarian organization to visit him, is in strict defiance of the Geneva Conventions and to Red Cross policy. Even today, the IRC continues to send assistance to Hamas, and yet it cannot gain access to him. They have not been vocal enough about its inability to contact him and alerting the world. Shalit deserves to have his basic rights to meet with the IRC, and to enable communication with Gilad with his family. They still grieve for him, as do all Israelis; some continue to meet with other supporters, outside the Prime Minister’s residence in Jerusalem, demanding the government to ensure his release.

Hamas plays this cynical game, and the world community buys into it, believing it is at war with a morally equivalent adversary in Israel. Just recently, at the Yom Hatzmaot (Independence Day) ceremony in Jerusalem, Gilad’s brother interrupted it, holding a sign reading, “my father is a bereaved brother- I don’t want to be one too.”

This is all quite depressing, but reality here in Israel. Everything is not as celebratory like in the US, after a “victory,“ like scenes of euphoria on the streets of New York and D.C. following Osama Bin Laden’s death. Israel continues to battle its enemies through a series of “rounds,” as Ben Gurion once analyzed it would have to in order to survive. The Middle East is about survival and stability, and nothing more.

One should not be distracted by this current diplomatic division between Israel and US; it is a ruse, merely a sideshow to boost political points; it can be smoothed over. Corporal Shalit, who continues to rot in Gaza, remains inhumanely treated and forgotten by the world community, focusing on “settlements.” While the interim Egyptian government has allegedly put together a draft agreement for some kind of prisoner-exchange, nothing has yet been finalized, and the waiting game continues to persist.

One should never forget the cynical, and sickening games employed by terrorists like Hamas.

Obama and Libya in February

Jared Feldschreiber

http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/02/obamas_libya_silence.html

I give US President Obama credit: he does not bomb his own citizens. For reasons only he and his advisers know for sure, Obama remains muted, and indifferent, to the current genocide in Tripoli, Libya in which Libyan Dictator Muammar al-Gaddafi has unleashed a violent crackdown on his citizens. In 1986, Libya was bombed by Ronald Reagan because the then US President correctly deemed the Maghreb country’s dictator as a rogue, and a terrorist. This current US President remains reticent to respond, after a week of bloodshed in Tripoli's streets. This is the 3AM “wake up call” Secretary of State Hillary Clinton chided him about 3 years ago.
As Washington Post’s Charles Krauthammer accurately said of Obama’s silence on Tuesday's Bret Baier’s Fox News Program: “This is a President who went around the world in the first year in office saying he would he was raising the moral standard of the United States in the world after the travesties as he saw it or the Bush Administration. Here he is, he has nothing on what’s happening in Libya which is a case of brutality and mere genocide to use the word of one of Gaddafi's own diplomats. The shooting of demonstrators from helicopter gunships, the strafing of demonstrators from bombers astonishing.”
Yes, it is astonishing that the leader of the Free World can prove so weak in the face of this carnage. No it is not surprising to see this kind of behavior from an unpredictable despot who has been openly anti-American and violently oppressive for decades.
Obama was quick to abandon his ally, Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak two weeks ago, as the “political winds" blew toward the protesters at Tahrir Square in Cairo. Now, Obama refuses to castigate Gaddaffi, a dangerous man who remains unchallenged in his 42 years of dictatorship. The man who led a bloodless Nasserist-style coup in in 1969, is currently basking in the total destruction of his own country-- all by his own doing. We are bearing witness to a genocide. Gaddafi refuses to relinquish power, and this week, simultaneously ordered strategic bombing of his own citizens, who he and his son, deem as” dogs.” This is something Saddam Hussein once ordered against the Kurds. Some of Ghaddafi's bombardiers heroically refused to execute their orders and fled to Malta.
The rest of the world community also is turning a “blind eye” to this soon-to-be- all-out civil war. The self-congratulatory United Nations, laughably had appointed Gaddafi as a member of the Human Rights Council and has merely given lip service. There are news clips of Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi’s sharing smiles with Gaddafi. I believe these images will haunt the Italian Premier's legacy long after his sexual liaisons subside. He is a complicit partner to a madman who seeks “total war,” even against his people. Berlusconi ‘s country had been the colony of this North African country, and like other European countries, their attitude toward the Mid East remains one of collective guilt, deceiving themselves into believing they can now rationalize with evil despots. It is both a farce and shameful that the West refuses, and with impunity forget their values.
Does the United States and the Europeans stay reticent today because they fear an oil-rich country, like Libya, will not provide "vital" resources in the future?
If the answer is “yes,” it’ is both inexcusable and unconscionable. The West should remember its roots, one built on democracy, liberty and inalienable rights to stand up for justice and equality. The Obama Administration is afraid of stepping on the toes of an evil tyrant who remains hell-bent on spitting on these hallowed principles.
If there is something to be learned it is that Arab politics remains a convoluted game of ‘strong man politics,’ antithetical to everything the West is supposed to espouse; Arab Politics has always been, and will always be an anarchic and violent system. Hello World!: we are all bearing witness to its naked ugliness.
As a leader of the Free World, Obama’s reticence to this rogue regime is sickening, and his baffling silence remains deafening.

richie havens sad eyed lady of the low lands.wmv

Natasha Estemirova remembered in Israel

Natasha Estemirova remembered in Israel

mirror_wolfe

December 28th, 14:52

Recently received a letter. Israeli journalist Jared Feldshreyber. Origin - USA. He now lives in Tel Aviv. At university.

We corresponded for about freedom of speech and journalists' rights, when Jared had sent his dedication Natalia Estemirova.

I asked him why he started writing poems about a woman who has never seen. Jared: "My poem merely is one voice seeking to raise awareness of brave truth-tellers unfairly gunned down for speaking out". "If poetry needs to be political, then so be it". ("My poem - it's just a lone voice who tries to tell about brave, not afraid to tell the truth, the price for what is a bullet. If poetry must be political, so it has to be.")

For Natalya

For I didn't know you
Until you died a callous murder;
Though your integrity lay intact.
For the bravery you humbly hid
Beneath the countless souls you helped to protect
Somewhere near the perilous Caucasus Mountains

Natalya:

I marvel at your courage
And I've never met you
Though I would have wanted.
You met the tragic irony of your own courage:
You met the same fate of others you sought to protect.

Natalya:
For we remember you by your first name alone;
You were murdered for your cause
And your cause had you murdered.

Natalya:
You were in a line of other needless deaths
Like Anna, Stanislav, Umar, Sulim, Ruslan: bludgeoned in cold blood.
The convoluted Russian spy games reduced to sheer chicanery
Masking the simplicity of shrouding the truth.

Natalya:
You did not die in vain;
Your enemies thought you were a robber of truth
And they will be punished.
You are somewhere amongst us
Beyond the withering trees.

http://www.reut-institute.org/Data/Uploads/PDFVer/20100310%20Delegitimacy%20Eng.pdf