by John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavy
Was it worse? The Pentagon press corps was up in arms about new media guidelines proposed by Hegseth, but for years the very same outlets agreed to significantly greater restrictions on their reporting at Gitmo when under Obama, Biden's administrations.
Dozens of media outlets refused to sign new Trump Pentagon press guidelines, arguing that the rules were too onerous, but many of the very same outlets previously signed Obama-Biden era media policies that were far more restrictive and censorious in order to cover the war court at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba.
Many large outlets such as The Washington Post, the Associated Press, Reuters, The New York Times, Fox News, NBC News, and CBS News were among those which refused to sign the Pentagon’s new media guidelines. At the same time, these outlets agreed to far more restrictive policies — including censorship — in order to cover Guantánamo Bay.
Carol Rosenberg of the Times, in particular, reported at the Cuban war court for many years — and all the reporters who traveled to Gitmo were required to sign severely restrictive agreements with the military before they were allowed onto the base.
Despite the opposition from news outlets to the new press guidelines instituted by the Department of Defense (now also called the Department of War), the media guidelines at Guantánamo Bay that have been in place for many years — and that have been signed by dozens of reporters — include promises by these news outlets to not publish certain sensitive information, to not interview certain subjects, to stay out of certain areas, and to allow military handlers to censor what photos and videos reporters are allowed to publish.
None of the outlets immediately provided a comment to Just the News.
After the filing period, the Department of War on Wednesday announced a revamped iteration of the Pentagon press corps, with Just the News signing the new media guidelines and being named a new member of the group.
"We are excited to announce over 60 journalists, representing a broad spectrum of new media outlets and independent journalists, have signed the Pentagon’s media access policy and will be joining the new Pentagon press corps," DoW spokesman Sean Parnell stated, criticizing the outlets that “chose to self-deport from the Pentagon” rather than sign the DoW’s new guidelines.
Pentagon press corps walks out rather than signing new media guidelines
Many of the Pentagon Press Association’s member outlets condemned new policies instituted by War Secretary Peter Hegseth, which are allegedly designed to curb the solicitation of sensitive and classified information. The proposed restrictions include prohibiting reporters from entering certain areas without an escort, barring them from offices of senior military leaders unaccompanied, and informing them that military officials are not supposed to release unauthorized information.
The current Pentagon media policy, which was distributed to the Pentagon press corps in early October, outlines the War Department’s new policies to protect classified and other non-classified, but allegedly sensitive, information. It tells military officers and other employees that they “face potentially severe consequences,” including criminal penalties, for disclosing any nonpublic information without authorization.
“Both military members and DoW civilian employees also face potential criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. §1905 for disclosure of confidential information or under the Privacy Act, 5 U.S.C. §552a, for knowing and willful unauthorized disclosures,” the policy reads.
The Pentagon policy also says journalists should understand that military officials could face criminal consequences for leaks and warned that “solicitation” of any employee to commit a criminal act is not permitted. Other areas addressed are:
-
The policy says that “members of the media are not required to submit their writings to DoW for approval” but adds that reporters “should understand that DoW personnel may face adverse consequences for unauthorized disclosures.”
-
No Solicitation of Crime: “Any solicitation of DoW personnel to commit criminal acts would not be considered protected activity under the 1st Amendment,” the Pentagon’s policy reads.
-
The policy adds that “nothing in this document requires you to waive any constitutional rights.”
No rights waived by press
The “Acknowledgment” section of the policy, which asks for a signature from reporters, says that “I have received, read, and understand” the Pentagon’s guidelines. This section notably adds that “my signature represents my acknowledgment and understanding of such DoW policies and procedures, even if I do not necessarily agree with such policies and procedures.” This section also adds that “signing this acknowledgment does not waive any rights I may have under law.”
Aida Alami wrote an article for the Columbia Journalism Review this week which stated: “Last week, however, a new media policy took effect at the Pentagon. It requires reporters to sign a pledge agreeing only to use material that is ‘approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official, even if it is unclassified.’ Journalists who refused to fall in line lost their passes.”
In reality, actual Pentagon policy, does not include the language allegedly "quoted" by CJR, but instead says: “DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released by any military member, DoW civilian employee, or contract employee, even if it is unclassified.”
CJR did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Internal communications between the lawyer representing the Pentagon Press Association and a Pentagon official show that the association and its allies raised concerns about the “understanding” clause, but not other First Amendment concerns the outlets have published publicly.
“I have received a copy of the revised in-brief statement of Pentagon policy, which continues to request reporters to acknowledge their ‘understanding’ of the policy as a condition to the receipt of a press pass,” PPA’s lawyer David Schulz wrote in an email reviewed by Just the News.
“As previously explained, this language is problematic for many reporters because the discussion of what constitutes ‘solicitation’ and other aspects of the policy are far from clear,” Schulz wrote. “We had understood that this unnecessary language would be replaced by a simple ‘received and read’ acknowledgment.”
Schulz, the Floyd Abrams Lecturer in Law and Senior Research Scholar in Law at Yale Law School, did not immediately respond to a request for comment asking for his thoughts on the media guidelines at Guantánamo Bay.
Gabe Rottman, the Vice President of Policy at The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, echoed the same concern. He explained that his organization was led to believe that the journalists would only be required to sign an acknowledgment of a “simple receipt and review of the policy” rather than “the signatory’s ‘understanding’ of the policy,” according to a separate email reviewed by Just the News.
“We also anticipate that a number of news organizations will continue to have concerns about the purported legal distinction between passive receipt of information and active ‘solicitation’ that DoW regards as improper…” Rottman wrote.
Rottman did not immediately respond to a request for comment about media outlets agreeing to restrictions at Gitmo.
Reporters for years have signed restrictive agreements under Obama and after
One version of the military guidelines for the press at Gitmo is dated September 2010 — during the Obama administration — and appears to have been in force for many years after.
The 2010 version said that “media representatives must agree to and sign the attached Media Ground Rules prior to being allowed access” to Gitmo and that “failure to follow these ground rules and instructions may result in restricted access on GTMO, removal from the installation, and revocation of press credentials.” The policy also said that “failure to comply with these ground rules could result in permanent expulsion of the NMR and/or removal of the parent news organization from further access to GTMO or to military commissions.”
The guidelines said that “by signing this document, the News Media Representative (NMR) is agreeing to abide by these restrictions” and asked reporters to “please sign the following, acknowledging that you have read and understand these ground rules and procedures, and agree to abide by them.”
The 2010 media policy, which Obama's administration said “Protected Information necessarily includes classified information," also detailed a host of content-based restrictions:
-
“Consistent with the media ground rules that are outlined here, the Department of Defense is the sole release authority for all military information contained in all media (e.g., audio visual, photography, graphics, sketches, etc.) gathered or produced within the Joint Task Force Guantanamo area of operation.”
-
Protected Information also includes (i) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to the national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods, or activities, or jeopardize the physical safety of individuals, and (ii) information subject to a properly-issued protective order by an official authorized to issue such orders by law or regulation.”
The Obama/Biden restrictions previously agreed to, in detail:
“NMRs shall not publish, release, publicly discuss, or share information gathered at GTMO, or in transit to or from GTMO on transportation provided by DoD (or other U.S. government entities), that is Protected Information for purposes of these ground rules,” the policy said.
The policy added that “JTF-GTMO has designated aspects of these operations whose disclosure is not permitted, and NMRs at GTMO will be required, as a condition of their visits, to safeguard this information, which will be deemed Operational Protected Information.”
The media guidelines added that “if Protected Information is inadvertently disclosed during a session, NMRs are urged to respect any temporary media embargo issued by the military judge until any disputes about the status of the information are resolved.”
“While at GTMO to attend military commission proceedings, and in transit to and from GTMO for that purpose, NMRs may be exposed to aspects of detention and base operations the disclosure of which must be avoided for reasons of national security, force protection and compliance with international treaty obligations,” the media guidelines said, adding, “JTF-GTMO has designated aspects of these operations whose disclosure is not permitted, and NMRs at GTMO will be required, as a condition of their visits, to safeguard this information, which will be deemed Operational Protected Information.”
The media policy banned reporters from communicating with any detainees, and said that “interviews with others not associated with JTF-GTMO or the military commissions proceedings, including with any Cuban, Haitian, or other migrant personnel, is expressly prohibited, unless specifically approved by the Commanding Officer.”
The policy guidelines also placed huge restrictions on what could be photographed — listing many examples of what could not be captured — and allowed the military to force the deletion of pictures or videos taken by reporters which were deemed in violation of the rules.
“NMRs will submit all still and video imagery taken at JTF-GTMO to a security review,” the guidelines said, adding, “An operational security review (OPSEC) of visual recordings will be conducted daily, as required, or at a minimum prior to departure from JTF-GTMO. All images and video are required to be screened prior to upload into any laptop and prior to release.”
The guidelines added: “During the OPSEC review, imagery that is determined to be in violation of these ground rules will be deleted or cropped to achieve compliance.”
Another version of the military’s ground rules for reporters appears to have been instituted in July 2021 — during the Biden administration — and it continued to contain a host of restrictions for reporters.
The same media outfits signed on for Biden's censorship powers
The 2021 version again told reporters that they “must read, sign, and submit the attached Department of Defense Media Ground Rules prior to being granted access” to Gitmo, and that “failure to comply with these ground rules or the instructions of the escorts implementing these rules can result in restricted access or expulsion from the installation of the NMR.” The policy required reporters to say that “I have read, understand, and will comply with the Media Ground Rules.”
The policy said that the rules “apply to news-gathering/reporting entities who intend to publicly publish information gained as a result of visiting” Gitmo, and that “this includes information to be published in traditional media, online, and on an NMR’s official social media channels.”
“In instances where there is an immediate threat to operational security, national security or personnel, the NMR’s access may be suspended by NSGB or the sponsoring command while this process is underway,” the policy said. “OSD Public Affairs retains final authority on actions pertaining to violations of ground rules.”
The rules said that “at no time during a media visit is communication (verbal, written, or other) with a detainee allowed.” The guidelines also said that reporters were also “not permitted to interact with a military judge or courtroom administrative personnel.” The policy also said that reporters could only speak to “migrants” if authorized by the State Department or the Department of Homeland Security.
Aside from a small number of military leaders at Gitmo who were allowed to be individually identified, the rules said that reporters were not allowed to interview military members without approval and could not attribute things to other military personnel by name without authorization.
“While at NSGB, and in transit to and from NSGB, an NMR may be exposed to aspects of U.S. Government (USG) operations, of which disclosure must be avoided for reasons of national security, force protection and compliance with international treaty obligations. These aspects of USG operations are Protected Information,” the media policy signed by reporters said. “The disclosure of such information is not permitted and an NMR will be required to safeguard it from being published and publicly released.”
The policy added: “Protected Information includes classified information and sensitive installation operations, including security procedures and emergency response actions of which NMRs may witness or take part. Protected Information also includes (i) information the disclosure of which could reasonably be expected to cause damage to national security, including intelligence or law enforcement sources, methods, or activities; or jeopardize the physical safety of individuals.”
The media policy also continued to include restrictions on photos, video, and audio recordings, stating that it would not be allowed in instances “when the collection will impose upon national security, operational security or the privacy of victim's family members in attendance, off-duty military or their dependents, and private citizens.” The rules included dozens of examples of things which reporters were not allowed to record.
“NMRs will submit all still imagery, sketches, video imagery obtained through news-gathering activities and intended for publication, broadcast, or dissemination for operational security and information security reviews,” the guidelines said. “NMR submissions for screening as described in the immediate paragraph must be screened by designated personnel prior to uploading to any cloud application, or other technology device.”
The rules added that, before reporters left Gitmo, military public affairs officers “and properly designated information security personnel will conduct a review of all still imagery, acquired by the media while on NSGB, that is intended for publication to the respective news outlets’ social media sites, print publications, or radio and television broadcasts.”
The guidelines said that “during the course of this review, sensitive or classified information will be deleted or cropped by the NMR to achieve compliance, while in the company of the designated DoD reviewers.”
Long history of media complaints about military ‘censorship’ at Gitmo
The media has complained for many years about the severe restrictions placed on reporters at Gitmo — but news outlets and reporters have continued to sign onto the restrictive media policies and have continued to travel to the island.
Four reporters — including Rosenberg — were briefly banned from Gitmo in 2010 during the Obama administration for allegedly reporting the name of a former U.S. Army interrogator after the war court had declared his name to be a secret.
The American Civil Liberties Union called the ban "rash, draconian, and unconstitutional," and Obama's Pentagon agreed to lift the ban later that year.
The New York Times reported at the time: “Carol Rosenberg, who was barred along with three other journalists from reporting on the Guantánamo military commissions after she identified an Army interrogator whose name was already public, will return to cover hearings next week, her lawyer said Friday. But Ms. Rosenberg’s return is conditional: She had to submit a written acknowledgment to the Defense Department that she understood why she was barred, and she had to pledge to abide by the ground rules for reporters covering the Guantánamo trials.”
Reporters tell their Gitmo stories
A reporter for the Huffington Post wrote in 2014 that “the rules for reporters covering Guantanamo constantly change, but the shifts usually have to do with staff turnover rather than changes in written policy.”
A reporter for NPR wrote about a 2018 visit to Gitmo, which included a new version of a press policy for reporters to sign, including the warning that “disclosure of classified information may subject the News Media Representatives (NMR) to criminal prosecution” and that “imagery is considered property of the U.S. government until such imagery has been screened and approved for release.” The reporter wrote that "I signed the document because I wanted what [Navy] Cmdr. [Anne] Leanos had promised me and seven other journalists: the first guided tour in six months of Guantanamo's prison camps.”
The reporter added at the end of the piece: “The sour end to the tour suggests there may be another new message for reporters who venture down to Guantanamo: Not only will your photos become government property until they pass military censors — you may also be disciplined for simply taking them.”
Rosenberg did an interactive photo story in 2019 for the Times which said that “a four-day trip put on by the United States military, which reviewed every photo to determine if it could be published without violating secrecy rules, showed the base to be a mix of the mundane and extraordinary.”
“To document this trip, the photographer Doug Mills presented his photos for review. The military censors images it believes could threaten security, like showing locks and cameras, or impinge on the privacy of detainees,” Rosenberg wrote. “Mr. Mills had to delete as many as 40 percent of his images from the detention center.”
“On one trip, reporters may be allowed to take photos of the orange barriers surrounding the military courtroom. On another trip, members of the military might delete every photo that includes any portion of an orange barrier,” the story said. “It took a long time for officials to allow reporters to bring spiral-bound notebooks into the courtroom observation room, even though reporters are separated from detainees by several layers of soundproof glass.”
Reuters sent a reporter in 2013, who wrote “I was met at the airport by two Sergeants, who would be my escorts for the entire trip. Although technically I could walk around the naval base unescorted, taking pictures on any military installation often attracts attention, and I ended up doing all of my work while accompanied by PAO personnel. After I arrived I was briefed on what could and could not be photographed, and reminded that all photographs and videos had to be reviewed and approved by military censors. This generally took place at the end of the day and was referred to as the OPSEC (operational security) review,” the story said.
The Reuters article continued: “There is a long list of items not to photograph but ironically, I was permitted to take pictures of the NO PHOTOGRAPHY signs posted everywhere. When I mentioned that every inch of the base was easily identified on Google Earth, everyone in the office nodded their heads and sighed.”
“Tuesday afternoon I asked to take a few pictures of the fence and “no photography” signs outside Camp Delta, the former prison which now houses the detainee medical clinic and administrative offices,” the story continued. “Even with my PAO escort we were stopped and questioned by almost every person who drove past. No one could believe I was allowed to take pictures of the signs or fence. OPSEC is alive and well at Camp Delta.”
Margot Williams of The Intercept also wrote in 2022 about media restrictions at Gitmo.
Photojournalists agreed to severe restrictions as well, up to destruction of images
Williams wrote that “Military minders accompanying us everywhere on base. Operational security — OPSEC — reviews of every photo taken every day. Notebooks and pens only in the visitor gallery at the back of the courtroom, where we sat separated by glass from the defendants, legal teams, and judge. No drawing or doodling allowed."
She said that in November 2021, “Camp X-Ray was now off-limits, no photos were allowed, and we had to agree that any selfies from the border gate would not be published or posted.”
Rosenberg wrote for the Times in 2024 about a spot near a sign at Camp Justice near the island war court, one of the few places near there where pictures are allowed.
“This image may be familiar. For years, it has been the only view the government has allowed you to see of the sprawling court complex where the military is pursuing war crimes cases against five men accused of plotting the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and others,” Rosenberg said, adding, “Photography is now forbidden at the prison. So this photo signifies the power that the U.S. military wields at the court. The secrecy starts inside, with U.S. government agencies driving decisions on which hearings are open to the public and which portions of documents are blacked out.”
The story added: “News photography at the court and of the defendants is forbidden. Instead, the Pentagon allows photographers to take images of the area, and then security officials at the complex decide which reveal too much and must be destroyed.”
Michelle Shephard wrote for a Canadian outlet called The Walrus earlier this year, detailing the many years of press restrictions at Gitmo, saying that "I was among four journalists banned by the Pentagon in 2010, then allowed back after an outcry that the Barack Obama administration was muzzling the media. I’ve gone to spinning classes with marines [sic], on patrol with the coast guard [sic], and fought with public affairs officers until the wee hours against their censorship of photos I took of a protest by Uyghur detainees.”
Despite the complaints, all of these news outlets would have had to agree to sign restrictive press guidelines in order to cover the goings-on at Gitmo, surrendering their First Amendment rights to the Pentagon under both Presidents Obama and Biden.
John Solomon and Jerry Dunleavy
Source: https://justthenews.com/government/security/media-outlets-refused-sign-pentagon-guidelines-agreed-restrictions-censorship
No comments:
Post a Comment