The situation is regrettable — but easily remedied.
A military judge last week said he had no authority
to override an earlier decision by the Department of Defense that denied
requests by the defense attorneys for the accused and by and news-related
groups to televise the trials. In late November, the Pentagon said it would
provide ample transparency for the proceedings through news coverage, a remote
viewing site at Fort Meade, Md., and a website that posts transcripts of the
pre-trial proceedings within 24 hours of hearings.
A closed-circuit, live video feed will be sent to
Fort Meade and a few other military installations in the U.S.
The trials of five accused 9/11 conspirators is
expected to take place in about a year, before the commission sitting at the
high-security U.S. base on the tip of Cuba. The base is used for the detention
and interrogation of suspected terrorists.
Yes, presumably there are concerns about disclosures
of the identities of confidential informants or law enforcement officers, or of
arrest or surveillance tactics. But the same concerns are successfully dealt
with daily at trials conducted in state courtrooms across the country.
And yes, there are the general concerns about a fair
trial that have dogged “cameras in the courtroom” discussions since TV came
around. Cameras will be intrusive, it’s said, attorneys and judges will “play
to the audience” and jurors will be distracted if not intimidated as they
wonder how they’ll be perceived by family and friends.
Well, there already will be cameras present, it
seems, for that video feed. So where’s the added intrusion in wider access?
Zip. And there’s scant evidence from years of state court experience that an
audience beyond the courtroom will lead lawyers or a judge astray.
The secrecy surrounding Gitmo’s overall operation,
persistent questions worldwide about interrogation tactics, lingering
conspiracy theories about the 9/11 attacks, differences between this tribunal
and regular courtrooms, and just plain government accountability — all are
reasons to provide the nation with the most transparent of courtrooms. Taken
all together, these factors should provide overwhelming impetus to the
commission and the Department of Defense to find a way to bring television
coverage to the nation’s citizens.
I have one more concern about televised trials, a
personal one based on years as a journalist reporting on court proceedings.
Because few viewers, if any, will watch all of the testimony and all pre-trial
arguments and such, many will miss important witnesses or the accumulation of
tiny bits of evidence that knit together to prove or disprove criminal charges.
Hours of numbing, detailed testimony and examination about laboratory findings
or data-mining is light-years away from
the slick, quick justice of “Law and Order” or “CSI” — but may well be
the hinges upon which a jailhouse door swings shut.
We ought not to miss this spectacular chance to show
Americans and the world that terrorists can be held accountable in a court of
law, that due process works to the advantage of both defendant and prosecutor —
and to have those messages come to doubting nations via a free press, unencumbered
by a government’s potential self-interest in hiding possible flaws, missteps or
unanswered questions.
As much as I appreciate the skill and accuracy of
the journalists who will be reporting on the Guantanamo proceedings, this is
one courtroom where “seeing is believing” is not an old saying, but both an
opportunity and a necessity.
About the author: Gene Policinski, senior vice
president and executive director of the First Amendment Center, is a veteran
journalist whose career has included work in newspapers, radio, television and
online.
This article was published by the First Amendment
Center.
No comments:
Post a Comment