[Peace-discuss] Tonight, Bob Schieffer Can Perform Real Journalism on Drone Strikes

[Robert Naiman]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/tonight-bob-schieffer-can_b_2002794.html

One of the most fundamental tasks of journalism in a free society is to
press the government to disgorge information. And nowhere is this task more
important than when it comes to "national security."

A key power of the government is the power to withhold information. It is
obviously in the public interest that the government should try to keep
some things secret.

However, it is equally obvious that the power of government to withhold
information is fundamentally ripe for abuse. There are at least two reasons
why the government would want to keep information secret: 1) because
disclosure of information would likely harm the public interest and 2)
because while disclosure of information would serve the public interest, it
would likely harm the government's interest by assisting critics of
government policy to make their case.

In principle, these are two totally different cases. In practice, whether
information is being withheld in a particular case in order to protect the
public interest or to protect a government policy from scrutiny might be a
judgment call, subject to dispute. And if the government is allowed to make
that judgment call without any outside pressure, that is a situation that
is ripe for abuse, because the government has a self-interested incentive
to judge that the disclosure of information that would help critics make
their case would not serve the public interest.

In a criminal trial, there's a process called "discovery," in which the
defense can force the government to disclose information known only to the
government which would help the defense make its case. Failure of the
government to disclose such information can be considered serious
prosecutorial misconduct<http://www.mofo.com/department-of-justice-issues-memoranda-addressing-discovery-obligations-of-prosecutors-in-criminal-cases-01-05-2010/>
which
can result in the dismissal of the case, as in the corruption case of
former Senator Ted Stevens.

In the case of U.S. drone strike policy in Pakistan, the U.S. government is
withholding information that would help critics of the policy make their
case. This information is "classified," which implies an assertion and
judgment by the government that the disclosure of this information would
harm the public interest.

It is a fundamental task of journalism to put this judgment and assertion
under pressure.

The Acting U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan, Richard Hoagland, has recently
disclosed<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-press-us-ambass_b_1941919.html>
that
1) the U.S. government has an official count of how many civilians it
thinks have been killed by U.S. drone strikes in Pakistan and that 2) this
number is "classified."

If this number were publicly released, it would help critics of the drone
strike policy make their case, because critics of the drone strike policy
could present evidence to the media that the official U.S. number is too
low. So long as the official number is not disclosed, critics of the drone
strike policy cannot challenge the official number. Is the decision to keep
this number classified in the public interest, or is it about protecting
the policy from criticism? Journalism should press on this.

Journalists and researchers have reported <http://livingunderdrones.org/> that
the U.S. has targeted rescuers with "secondary" drone strikes in Pakistan.
International law experts have said that if the U.S. has targeted
rescuers, it's
a war crime<http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2012/02/04/a-question-of-legality/>.The
U.S. Ambassador to Pakistan has
denied<http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-naiman/americans-press-us-ambass_b_1941919.html>
the
allegation.

It is a fundamental task of journalism to establish the truth. Has the U.S.
targeted rescuers with "secondary" drone strikes in Pakistan? Is the U.S.
still doing so?

It would be a great advance for the transparency and accountability of the
drone strike program if Bob Schieffer would press on these details tonight.
But if he asks any question about drone strike policy at all, it would be a
step forward. You can urge Bob Schieffer to ask a question on drones strike
policy here <http://www.justforeignpolicy.org/act/drones-debate-question>.

-- 
Robert Naiman
Policy Director
Just Foreign Policy
www.justforeignpolicy.org
naiman at justforeignpolicy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.chambana.net/pipermail/peace-discuss/attachments/20121022/66061b9a/attachment.html>