Dying to tell the Truth

People sometimes ask me why I as a Christian want to go into journalism. Especially as every time you hear about the press in the news right now it’s usually in connection with the phrases “Leveson Enquiry,” “Phone Hacking” and “Operation Weeting.” In short, Journalists are bad people. In the eyes of the general public, the entire Fourth Estate is populated with people with the moral fibre and backbone of frogspawn and why would I want to be part of that?

I want to be a Journalist, because of people like Marie Colvin.

For those of you who don’t know, Marie Colvin was a foreign correspondent for the Sunday Times specialising in war reporting. She’d reported from pretty much every war zone on the planet over the last twenty years, from Sri Lanka to Libya. She was the journalist who arranged the only interview with Colonel Gaddafi during last year’s Libyan uprising.  She went wherever she was needed in search of not just the main story, but the stories that mattered. The stories that would echo in the hearts of the ordinary people back home.

This week, she died. She was killed in a missile strike while covering the Syrian Governments bombardment of the town of Homs. In an effort to prevent news of his regime’s atrocities reaching the western world, forces loyal to President Al-Assad destroyed the building being used by the foreign media, killing Marie Colvin and French photographer Remi Ochlik and wounding two others.

Homs is a dangerous place to be, and all the eulogies that have been said have made it clear that Colvin knew that. But they also say that she knew she had to go there, that she had to find the story.  The story that mattered to the people.  The story that might just shake up the world.  If she was going to have a say in the manner of her death, I would say that this is how she would want to go, informing the world.

That’s what draws me as a Christian  to journalism. That power, that ability to change the world even a little at a time. Bit by bit, inch by inch, story by story. For every journalist who is hacking phones in Wapping there is another bedded down with the troops in Helmand Province, or dragging themselves hither and thither across great distances, in search of that one story that matters.

That’s what we look for. That’s what we long for. Every minute we spend writing about a village fete will be vindicated when we finally find and break that story that will change the world. That will change how people view the world and how they understand it.

Yes journalism has a bad name at the moment. But at its heart it is a noble profession, tasked with possibly the most important assignment any man or woman can perform. Uncovering and reporting the Truth. We are truth-seekers and the knowledge of that more than makes up for the few bad apples in the journalistic barrel

“Our mission is to speak the truth to power. We send home that rough first draft of history. We can and do make a difference in exposing the horrors of war and especially the atrocities that befall civilians.”  - Marie Colvin – November 2010.

Entrapment

No, I’m not referring to the film with Catherine Zeta-Jones and Sean Connery. Rather I’m referring to what the Oxford English Dictionary defines as:

“The action of entrapping; the condition of being entrapped or caught by artifice.”

Something I suspect that august body the Federal Bureau of Investigation of being guilty of.

Those of you  who keep an eye on the international press may have noticed yesterday that the Americans were taking a break from rehearsing Carry On Mr President – sorry, the Republican primaries – and were instead jumping up and down and praising the FBI for stopping a potential terrorist attack on Washington DC. A Moroccan immigrant named Amine El Khalifi was caught heading towards the Capitol Building with a load of explosives. He was duly arrested and hustled away to be charged with attempting to use a weapon of mass destruction against US property. Well done the FBI, you’ve caught another terrorist.

Or have they?

‘No’ is the answer. For one thing Mr Khalifi didn’t have any explosives. At least not any that worked. His big old suicide vest contained explosives already rendered harmless. The gun he had also didn’t work. Was this because Al-Qaeda is getting sloppy now that they are comparatively leaderless? No. It was because Mr Khalifi was not connected with Al-Qaeda at all. What had actually happened was that a group of FBI agents pretending to be Al-Qaeda operatives had approached him and asked him nicely if he would be interesting in engaging some acts of terrorism. All so they could arrest him. Now apparently he had already been under investigation for over a year. But…

Does that stink to anyone else?

 I know I’m running the risk of sounding like a supporter of terrorism and Islamic extremism but once again here is an example of a country – that purports to value freedom above all else – bending the law in order to suit its own ends. Yes he was under investigation, but to my knowledge Mr Khalifi had neither broken any laws – other they overstaying his visa by something like twelve years – nor was actually connected with any genuine agents of Al-Qaeda. I can just imagine the conversation at FBI headquarters.

“We have to do something about this guy.

“Why?”

“Why? He’s a terrorist.”

“But he hasn’t done anything that suggests that. We’ve been watching him for over a year.”

“What if we set him up? Provided him the means and then arrested him?”

 “Wouldn’t that be illegal?”

“Hmm. Nah don’t think so.”

Civilised societies cannot act like this. Not if they want other nations to take them seriously. If the FBI could provide some evidence that Khalifi had actually been in contact with Al-Qaeda at some point and thus argued that its actions were preventative, or even waited until he had actually been contacted by Al-Qaeda that would have been fine and within the bounds of the law. But they didn't. And apparently this isn't the first time. Stings like this are apparently the standard strategy for dealing with "potential" terrorists.

So now Mr Khalifi is facing life imprisonment for something he wouldn't have done had the US Government not provided him with the opportuinity. I can only hope he has a good defence lawyer.

That won't matter in the end of course. A dangerous terrorist is off the streets and I'm sure the FBI and the US Government will argue that the ends justify the means. That's what they said about Guantanamo Bay and the water boarding.

Unfortunatly none of that will be any comfort to the flasely imprisoned Amine El Khalifi.

Do Unto Others

I’m hardly a fan of Islamic Extremists - I think they bring shame upon an ancient, and, in many respects, otherwise noble, religion – but having over the past week watched the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary and the Shadow Home Secretary jump up and down over the release of Abu Qatada I can’t help but think that we are running the risk of taking things too far.

Yes, I know, he is considered Al-Qaeda’s spiritual leader in Europe and is therefore bad news. But the only crime he may have committed under British law is incitement to racial hatred. Even the Law Lords ruled that holding him without charge simply because he is a “suspected” terrorist was unlawful. Yet we treat him as if he has been found guilty of blowing up Tower Bridge. Now rather than simply put him under surveillance we put him under some sort of draconian house arrest, monitoring his every contact and movement. Also, for once, I agree with the

European Court

on Human Rights. To send Abu Qatada back to Jordan at the moment would be a direct contravention of his right to freedom from torture as outlined in Article 5 of the UN Convention on Human Rights

“No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.”

Now I know what you’re thinking. Aren’t there times when we should just ignore those rules because the Daily Mail said we should? ‘No’ is the answer. There is never a time when that is appropriate. Abu Qatada may be a nasty, bad, evil, naughty, man who wishes to crush the infidel scum, but he is also a human being and, as such, he is entitled to the same rights as everyone else. He has yet to be convicted of any crime under British law and thus is to be considered innocent until proven guilty. The rights and privileges that come with being a human being must be upheld at all costs. We can’t simply change the rules where a specific person is involved because we don’t like them or the stuff that they say. If we could then Nick Griffin would already be languishing in a jail cell somewhere.

I love my country because of our attitudes towards tolerance, fair play and the belief that everyone deserves the same rights and opportunities in life (mostly). The code of our society may very well be “Do unto others as you would have others do unto you,” (something the Tories would do very well to remember). If Jordan can assure us that Abu Qatada will receive a fair trial and won’t be tortured then I will put him on the plane myself. But until then we cannot and should not send him back. Firstly because if the situations were reversed I’d hope he’d do the same for us. Even though secretly I know he wouldn’t. And secondly because if we allow our common decency to be stripped away like this, then the extremists have already won.