19 November 2001
Two reports below on creating panic and fabricating news by planted documents and stories, disinformation to established media and journalists, and letters to the editor. What is missing is full documentary evidence for close study by readers to determine truthfulness of reports rather than having to rely upon the reputation of media sources.
Example of disinformation planted in UK media:
http://www.sunday-times.co.uk/article/0,,9002-2001531142,00.html
See also New York Times report today on Bob Woodward and Seymour Hersh being exploited to plant high-level disinformation on national security and intelligence, but neither providing documentary evidence for reader evaluation:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/business/media/19RIVA.html
And another NY Times report on the US government accusing several nations of violation of germ-weapons treaty, without providing supporting evidence, to divert attention from its own failure to ratify the treaty:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/19/international/19GERM.html
Source: Hardcopy of Wall Street Journal, November 19, 2001.
By SALLY BEATTY And MATTHEW ROSE
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
If journalists discover documents purporting to show how to build a nuclear bomb, are they obligated to give them to authorities?
The question underscores the murky intersection of journalism ethics, national security and international law at a time of war -- and it isn't just academic.
In a dramatic live broadcast Friday morning, Christiane Amanpour, the star CNN correspondent, held aloft for TV cameras documents discovered in Kabul containing instructions on how to make a nuclear weapon.
Stories based on documents found in houses believed abandoned by al Qaeda operatives also appeared in the Washington Post, Times of London and on theBBC. More documents -- some just mundane correspondence and some perhaps related to weapons -- have been found at abandoned and bombed-out military bases of foreign fighters in and around Kabul. Reporters visiting some of those bases fiave been filling their briefcases with documents they find.
The papers offer more than just a gripping feel for the dramatic events unfolding on the ground thousands of miles away in Afghanistan. The detailed written references to "TNT," "uranium 235" and handwritten instructions for blowing up bridges, towers, planes and railways -- all itemized by Ms. Amanpour in her report -- could provide clues about potential future attacks being plotted by terrorists. Reporters often share information with government and other sources to gain additional information and to find out the potential significance of a discovery, though this is usually done orally.
Matthew Furman, a spokesman for CNN, wouldn't say whether Ms. Amanpour has the documents in her possession or whether she or CNN, a unit of AOL Time Warner Inc., planned to share them with other news organizations. He also wouldn't say if CNN planned to share the documents with U.S. officials, either for authentication or use as possible evidence in any criminal trial that might be mounted against Mr. bin Laden or other members of the al Qaeda network. "These are issues on which CNN typically doesn't have any comment," Mr. Furman said. However, a CNN insider said, "If asked, there would be no reason why we wouldn't let other people see these documents since we've already reported them on air." He added: "We haven't turned down requests" for information about the documents.
Senior officials at the Pentagon said they weren't aware of any Defense Department requests to see the documents obtained by journalists. Ms. Amanpour said on the air that the U.S. has "certainly taken note" of the documents.
There is no international law governing taking or using documents such as those detailed in the media reports and it isn't clear whether U.S. laws relating to freedom of the press extend in this case, said Floyd Abrams, a partner at New York law firm Cahill Gordon & Reindel and a noted First Amendment lawyer. "If there was a central government in Afghanistan, that government would use its own law."
Media advocates aren't universally opposed to handing over such sensitive information. Bob Steele, director of the ethics program at the Poynter Institute, a journalism research center, said that if the information disclosed is important, journalists need to consider if their obligation goes beyond merely reporting the information. "There is an ethical obligation to make sure you are not withholding certain information that could, if not revealed or released to authorities, cause great harm to others," he said.
One test is whether authorities can come across the same information themselves. Mr. Steele said reporters can take notes and pictures of the documents but taking the documents and not sharing them even with other news organizations is "highly problematic."
Len Downie, the executive editor of the Washington Post, said he hasn't been asked by the government for a peek at any documents that formed the basis of the paper's stories from Kabul. A story on Friday's front page detailed bomb-making booklets left in a Kabul house used by al Qaeda operatives.
Mr. Downie said that as far as he knew, the reporter, William Branigin, left the documents where he found them. "It's not clear to whom they belong, but they don't belong to Washington Post reporters," he said. Mr. Downie said he didn't know whether Ms. Amanpour was making available the documents she showed on air to his reporters in the area. Ms. Amanpour couldn't be reached for comment. In a report posted on CNN's Web site, she says the house where the documents were found was locked but that she and others scaled the wall and entered it.
The Times of London reported Thursday that one of its reporters discovered in an abandoned al Qaeda safe house partly burnt documents detailing designs for nuclear weapons. On Friday, the newspaper said it had found plans for manufacturing the biological poison ricin. A Times spokesman wouldn't say whether British or U.S. authorities had asked to see the documents.
That so many purportedly sensitive documents have been found in Kabul, by so many different reporters, does raise questions about their authenticity. "It's very hard to understand why these documents, which appear to be at least evident of intent, were left around," said Ms. Amanpour in her CNN report. She pointed out that many of the homes in which the documents were found appeared to have been cleaned out by parties unknown before the journalists arrived. Indeed, at the Intercontinental Hotel in Kabul, the de facto residence of foreign correspondents, some Afghans have appeared offering various documents for sale.
CBS Evening News carried a report on Friday night that included video from the British Broadcasting Corporation about documents containing instructions on how to assassinate from the back of a motorcycle. Asked how CBS would handle any documents believed to belong to al Qaeda, CBS spokeswoman Sandra Genelius said: "Our primary responsibility as journalists is to our viewers. We aren't an arm of the government. This is a war, however, so if we came into possession of information that could put lives in danger, such as an act of terrorism, we would act as responsible citizens and inform the authorities."
The New York Times declined to say whether it had obtained any documents. A spokesman for The Wall Street Journal, published by Dow Jones & Co., said it has retrieved some documents in an abandoned area. In general, the spokesman said, the paper would only take possession of them if they were given to reporters or if they were discovered "in a clearly abandoned state" with no visible owner. In either case, he said the paper would give the originals to the government if the documents affected national security.
-- Charles Goldsmith, Greg Jaffe, Steve LeVine and Alan Clullison contributed to this article.
Source: Hardcopy of The New Yorker, November 19, 2001
PAKISTAN'S BOMBS
Seymour M. Hersh's concern about nuclear issues in South Asia merits respect ("Watching the Warheads," November 5th). However, the unnamed American officials he cites, who express doubts about Pakistan's ability to keep control of its nuclear assets, seem unaware of what we have accomplished. In the past two years, Pakistan has implemented strong command-and-control measures to guarantee foolproof nuclear security. Safe custody is insured by dedicated formations of specially equipped forces, which have been set up for each of the three armed services. Stringent procedures are in place to minimize risks of accidental or unauthorized launch. The United States has expressed confidence in the steps we have taken; we have never had an incident of theft or of leakage of nuclear material, equipment, or technology from military or civilian research facilities.
Much of the credit is due to our armed forces, who are -- despite Hersh's portrayal of them as discontented -- professional, disciplined, and institutionally strong. Any apprehension that strategic assets might fall into the hands of extremists is imaginary -- a product partly of television images that magnify the sights and sounds of protesters who represent a fringe, and by no means a crosssection, of our population. It is wrong to interpret feelings of sympathy for the Afghan people -- with whom we share affinities of history and culture, and some of whom have been the innocent victims of stray bombs -- as a danger to the government. The vast majority of the people support the state: moderate and rational, they understand that our policy is founded on principles of law and world consensus, and that it serves the national interest of Pakistan.
Abdul Sattar, Foreign Minister
The Islamic Republic of Pakistan
Islamabad, Pakistan
____________________
Hersh describes the very dangerous combination of Pakistani protests against General Pervez Musharraf's support of the American military campaign in Afghanistan, hostilities between Pakistan and India in Kashmir, and Pakistan's insecure nuclear arsenal. The United States, his story suggests, is acting with scant regard to the dangerous chain reaction it could trigger in the region. This should come as little surprise to observers of American foreign policy, which is too often conducted with little knowledge of, or regard for, far-off countries and their security concerns. The "collateral damage" of this approach, however, can include not only civilians accidentally caught by bombs but also the stability of entire regions. In this case, the potential damage -- a possible nuclear war involving approximately a fifth of the world's total population -- has the possibility of far overshadowing any objectives the United States might hope to achieve.
Ashwini K. Chhabra
New York City
____________________
There may well be reason to worry about the security of Pakistani nuclear weapons, but it is irresponsible for Hersh to report that the United States is putting together a special team that may be deployed to take control of the warheads in case Musharraf falls -- and that it is getting help from Israel. For ordinary people in Pakistan, this story will serve to validate the message that religious leaders have been propagating about the dishonesty of American intentions. Many Pakistanis already believe that the United States' goal is to take away Pakistan's nuclear weapons, and not to fight terrorism. When the Pakistanis do take to the streets against their government, they will do so not by the thousands but by the millions. Articles like Hersh's will only make that more likely.
Pir A. Shah
Overland Park, Kans.