View Full Version : NYT Reporter Freed In Raid
A fair piece of work - and so it goes...;)
Richard's $.02 :munchin
NYT Reporter Freed In Raid
Rahim Faiez, AP, 9 Sep 2009
British commandos freed a New York Times reporter early Wednesday from Taliban captors who kidnapped him over the weekend in northern Afghanistan, but one of the troops and a Times translator were killed in the rescue.
Reporter Stephen Farrell was taken hostage along with his translator in the northern province of Kunduz on Saturday. German commanders had ordered U.S. jets to drop bombs on two hijacked fuel tankers, causing a number of civilian casualties, and reporters traveled to the area to cover the story.
Two military officials told The Associated Press that one British commando died during the early morning raid. They spoke on condition of anonymity because the death had not been officially announced.
The Times reported that Farrell's Afghan translator, Sultan Munadi, also was killed.
Afghan officials over the weekend said about 70 people died when U.S. jets dropped two bombs on the tankers, igniting them in a massive explosion. There were reports that villagers who had come to collect fuel from the tankers were among the dead, and Farrell wanted to interview villagers.
The Times kept the kidnappings quiet out of concern for the men's safety, and other media outlets, including The Associated Press, did not report the abductions following a request from the Times.
A story posted on the Times' Web site quoted Farrell saying he had been "extracted" by a commando raid carried out by "a lot of soldiers" in a firefight.
Mohammad Sami Yowar, a spokesman for the Kunduz governor, said British Special Forces dropped down from helicopters early Wednesday onto the house where the two were being kept, and a gunbattle ensued.
A Taliban commander who was in the house was killed, along with the owner of the house and a woman who was inside, Yowar said. He said Sultan was killed in the midst of the firefight.
Farrell, a dual Irish-British citizen, told the Times that he saw Munadi step forward shouting "Journalist! Journalist!" but he then fell in a volley of bullets. Farrell said he did not know if the shots came from militants or the rescuing forces.
Moments later, Farrell said he heard British voices and shouted, "British hostage!" The British voices told him to come over. As he did, Mr. Farrell said he saw Mr. Munadi.
Munadi, in his early 30s, was employed by The New York Times starting in 2002, according to his colleagues. He left the company a few years later to work for a local radio station.
He left Afghanistan last year to study for a master's degree in Germany. He came back to Kabul last month for a holiday and to see his family, and agreed to accompany Farrell to Kunduz on a freelance basis. He was married and had two young sons.
U.S. military spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker confirmed the operation by NATO and Afghan forces, but did not provide further details.
Farrell, 46, is a dual British-Irish national who joined the Times in 2007 in Baghdad. He has covered both the Afghan and Iraq conflicts for the paper. He told the paper that he was not hurt in the rescue operation.
Farrell was the second Times journalist to be kidnapped in Afghanistan in a year.
In June, Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter David Rohde and his Afghan colleague Tahir Ludin escaped from their Taliban captors in northwestern Pakistan. They had been abducted Nov. 10 south of the Afghan capital of Kabul and were moved across the border.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan_377
Ret10Echo
09-09-2009, 04:25
Congratulations to the Brits...
Condolences to the family of the fallen commando.
Will the Times change their spin....hmmm....:rolleyes:
Shouldn't they have whacked the NY Times guy, what's with their target ID skills.
"British commandos freed a New York Times reporter early Wednesday from Taliban captors who kidnapped him"
Are we sure he wasn't going village to village selling subscriptions? I know the NYT's numbers are down.
TOMAHAWK9521
09-09-2009, 12:53
"British commandos freed a New York Times reporter early Wednesday from Taliban captors who kidnapped him"
Are we sure he wasn't going village to village selling subscriptions? I know the NYT's numbers are down.
Are they sure he wasn't embedded with them?
TrapLine
09-09-2009, 13:02
Nice work by the Brits. I apologize if I am out of line to point this out here, but reading the article it struck me that the AP was willing to hold the story at the request of the Times, yet ignored the wishes of the family of Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard.
Ret10Echo
09-09-2009, 13:02
And a life was lost for this guy??
The first time Stephen Farrell was kidnapped was in Iraq in 2004. It was a thankfully brief affair that ended – with typical persistence from the then Times reporter – with him negotiating the return of his armoured car and most of his equipment. He went on to write up his encounter as an interview, casting light on Iraqi attitudes towards George Bush.
Story link is
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/sep/09/stephen-farrell-rescue-journalist-afghanistan
And a life was lost for this guy??
That is unbelievable. His life was not worth that Brit's. I would rather leave these reporters to their fates so that they can reconsider the risk/reward of covering Afghanistan.
Nice work by the Brits. I apologize if I am out of line to point this out here, but reading the article it struck me that the AP was willing to hold the story at the request of the Times, yet ignored the wishes of the family of Lance Cpl. Joshua M. Bernard.
EXACTLY!:mad:
Holly
I hope Farrell realizes that he is directly responsible for the commando's death. Was the story worth it? Douchebag.
Utah Bob
09-09-2009, 18:25
Kidnap me once shame on you.
Kidnap me twice..........:rolleyes:
MOO - it is what it is - and for anyone who has never pulled BRIGHT LIGHT/CSAR rotation - you have no idea what a mission like this entails and your opinions (IMO) add nothing to this discussion.
RIP for a job well done, young soldier. Zum wohl! :lifter
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Utah Bob
09-09-2009, 20:46
I wonder why CNN said it was NATO commandos??
I wonder why CNN said it was NATO commandos??
UK is a NATO commitment to the theater - maybe there were other NATO forces supporting the op. :confused:
Richard's $.02 :munchin
Surgicalcric
09-09-2009, 20:51
I wonder why CNN said it was NATO commandos??
Because they are idiots. ;)
Crip
A statement from the United Kingdom's PM, Gordon Brown, available here (http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/BritishSoldierKilledInAfghanHostageRescue.htm).
British soldier killed in Afghan hostage rescue
A Military Operations news article
9 Sep 09
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has issued a statement on an operation in Afghanistan to free hostage Stephen Farrell, a journalist of dual British/Irish nationality.
Ministry of Defence
The Prime Minister said:
"Last night, Stephen Farrell, a journalist of dual British/Irish nationality, was freed from Taliban captivity in a British operation supported by the Afghan authorities and our NATO allies.
"He is now safe and well, receiving support from embassy staff and undergoing medical checks. Sadly, we were unable to rescue Stephen's Afghan interpreter, Sultan Munadi, and we send his family our condolences.
"It is with very deep sadness that I must also confirm that, while acting with the greatest of courage in this most dangerous mission, one member of the British Armed Forces lost his life.
"His family has been informed, and our immediate thoughts are with them. His bravery will not be forgotten.
"This operation was carried out after extensive planning and consideration. Those involved knew the high risks they were running. That they undertook it in such circumstances showed breathtaking heroism. I also want to thank the Afghan authorities and our NATO allies for their support.
"Hostage taking is never justified, and the UK does not make substantive concessions, including paying ransoms. But whenever British nationals are kidnapped, we and our allies will do everything in our power to free them.
"As we all know, and as last night once again demonstrated, our Armed Forces have the skill and courage to act. They are truly the finest among us, and all of us in Britain pay tribute to them, and to the families and communities who sustain them in their awesome responsibilities."
Now this from the Daily Telegraph's online edition. Source is here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/6164282/Anger-as-Para-dies-to-rescue-New-York-Times-journalist.html).
Anger as Para dies to rescue New York Times journalist
The death of a British paratrooper in a raid to free New York Times journalist Stephen Farrell kidnapped in Afghanistan has caused “resentment” in the Army after the reporter was accused of ignoring security advice by venturing into a Taliban stronghold.
By Andrew Pierce
Published: 7:00AM BST 10 Sep 2009
The soldier, who has not yet been named, died in a pre-dawn operation to rescue Stephen Farrell, a New York Times correspondent who has joint British and Irish nationality.
Mr Farrell, 46, was unharmed in the rescue but his Afghan interpreter, Sultan Munadi, 34, was killed together with a woman and a child.
One senior Army source told The Daily Telegraph: “When you look at the number of warnings this person had it makes you really wonder whether he was worth rescuing, whether it was worth the cost of a soldier’s life.
“In the future, special forces might think twice in a similar situation.”
Robin Horsfall, a former SAS officer, told Channel 4 News: “Some questions will be asked if a journalist has behaved in a reckless fashion and put them in this position. There’s going to be some resentment.”
Hugh McManners, a former special forces officer, said: “There is quite a heavy burden of responsibility that [Mr Farrell] should bear.”
The soldier who died was a member of 1st Bn The Parachute Regiment, serving with special forces. His family has been informed.
Mr Farrell and Mr Munadi had been kidnapped at gunpoint on Saturday as they travelled to a village near Kunduz in northern Afghanistan to report on civilian deaths in a Nato air strike on fuel tankers that had been hijacked. Gordon Brown was understood to have authorised the rescue mission.
While the Prime Minister praised the bravery of the British soldiers involved, there was anger among senior Army officers over the fact that Mr Farrell had apparently defied repeated warnings from Afghan police and village elders not to go into the Taliban-controlled territory where he was snatched.
According to one report, Mr Farrell and Mr Munadi were interviewing Afghans near the site of the bombing when an elderly man warned them to leave, saying the Taliban were on their way. But they stayed and were kidnapped at gunpoint shortly afterwards.
Security sources said the raid was carried out amid fears that Mr Farrell and his interpreter were about to be handed over to al-Qaeda.
FWIW, Mr. Farrell's contributions to the New York Times are available here (http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/f/stephen_farrell/index.html).
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090910/ap_on_re_as/as_afghanistan
Afghan reporters blame NATO for colleague's death
...
Col. Wayne Shanks, a U.S. and NATO spokesman, called the deaths during the rescue operation "tragic" but said he did not want to assign blame. "I don't think that during the middle of a firefight anyone can blame someone for what they did or did not do."
...
Col. Shanks wasn't willing to pass judgement without the facts. A trait not every leader possesses, unfortunately.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090910/wl_time/08599192126300
Stephen Farrell's Release: Questions About British Raid
...according to the source close to the negotiations, a decision was made "at ministerial levels" in London to mount the operation. Neither the Times nor Farrell's family were warned of the impending raid. The British are partners of the U.S.-led military coalition in Afghanistan and have 8,000 troops in the country.
...
Are they (New York Times) really surprised that they weren't told about the raid? What was the British gov't expected to do, tell them about the raid and ask them not to publish the details until afterwards? We all know how good the media is at respecting the wishes of others.
How many people have been released peacefully because we asked nicely?
Paying a ransom just proves that kidnapping is a good business plan.
...and for anyone who has never pulled BRIGHT LIGHT/CSAR rotation - you have no idea what a mission like this entails and your opinions (IMO) add nothing to this discussion.
Perhaps, but there are more than a handful of guys in my office that spent quality time at Batman and Brindisi that think this life-for-life trade may not have been "worth it". Something about 'repeat offenders' and "stupid is as stupid does".
I hope Farrell realizes that he is directly responsible for the commando's death. Was the story worth it? Douchebag.
I agree that there's a connection between the mindset of Mr. Farrell and Ms. Jacobson. Both seem to have little regard for the consequences that their countrymen may face because of their pursuit of "the story." And like Ms. Jacobson, Mr. Farrell seems oblivious to the possibility of finding other ways to tell the same story without betraying the trust of their countrymen.
Surgicalcric
09-10-2009, 15:20
...there are more than a handful of guys in my office that spent quality time at Batman and Brindisi that think this life-for-life trade may not have been "worth it". Something about 'repeat offenders' and "stupid is as stupid does".
There are quite a few guys here in the UK who feel the same about having to sacrifice a fine young Para for this POS...
Stupid is as stupid does, indeed!
Crip
Perhaps, but there are more than a handful of guys in my office that spent quality time at Batman and Brindisi that think this life-for-life trade may not have been "worth it". Something about 'repeat offenders' and "stupid is as stupid does".
IMO that's what a staff should be concerned about - but it is what it is for the guys on the ground. ;)
RIP young soldier - your sacrifice was not in vain. :(
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The reporter's side to the story.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
The Reporter’s Account: 4 Days With the Taliban
Stephen Farrell, NYT, 9 Sep 2009
Part 1 of 3
Mid-to-late morning on Friday, Sept. 4, we in the Kabul bureau began hearing reports of an explosion in a Taliban-controlled area near the northern city of Kunduz.
It was clear that this was going to be a major controversy, involving allegations of civilian deaths against NATO claims that the dead were Taliban. Furthermore, it was in an area that was becoming increasingly newsworthy because it was becoming more troubled by insurgents.
My colleague Rich Oppel and I began discussing the story, and I forewarned the Afghan staff that they should at least begin thinking about logistics for a possible drive north, for a decision to be taken later.
The drivers made a few phone calls and said the road north appeared to be safe until mid- to late afternoon. It was close to the cut-off point, but if we left immediately we could do it. We left within minutes.
En route, I called in to the bureau to check with Rich on how the story was developing. He said the Kunduz police were saying that there were only adult male patients at the main hospital in Kunduz, leaving it unclear whether they were civilians or Taliban.
We saw that the highway we were on was going to pass through Ali Abad, a village near the location of the blast.
We decided not to stop and made straight for the hospital. But after we passed through Ali Abad, Sultan saw a man walking along the road, and suggested we offer him a lift and talk to him as we drove. We did but he was unhelpful beyond generally proffering local rumors. A few miles farther on, we ran into a fortified police checkpoint. Sultan began talking to the police and gleaned the exact location of the tanker blast, the substance of the story and that it was not safe to go off the main highway to the site, which we had no intention of doing that late anyway.
We went directly to the hospital, which was crowded with patients, doctors, journalists — including one Western woman from Reuters news agency — and International Committee of the Red Cross officials. The reactions to us were very benign. We took extensive notes and interviews with two patients including a young boy of 10 who said he was injured in the blast, and went straight to the hotel in Kunduz to spend the night. The hotel had armed guards. While there I spoke to a Western journalist from Al Jazeera English, who said he had been to, or near, the scene in the afternoon, but that he had not felt safe to go into the villages.
On Saturday, Sept. 5, I woke up in Kunduz to begin the second day of reporting.
We did what we had not dared do at such a late hour on Friday. We drove south of Kunduz along the main Kabul highway until we reached the turnoff.
I checked with Sultan and the driver to see if they felt safe going there, and they said it seemed all right. We edged along a narrow country lane and came out on the riverbank with the tankers a few hundred yards ahead.
We did not go up to the tankers themselves, which were stranded in the middle of the river, but stayed on the towpath. I briefly filmed the vehicles while Sultan and the driver spoke to Afghans beneath a tree, dividing the duties to save time.
I then rejoined Sultan and the driver and we began interviewing an Afghan beneath the tree, getting his account of what happened. He said that the Taliban — he later amended it to ”armed men” — had stolen the tanker, failed to drive it across the river and then commanded residents of nearby villages to bring tractors to help ferry away the load.
Word quickly spread, according to the witness — supporting the evidence from the hospital the night before — and many ran to the site with jerrycans, eager for free fuel in an impoverished area.
As the interviewee spoke I was checking with Sultan and he seemed relaxed: there was no sign of hostility from the crowd, only faces eager to tell a story.
A crowd began to gather, time passed and we grew nervous. I do not know how long we were there, but it was uncomfortably long. I am comfortable with the decision to go to the riverbank, but fear we spent too long there.
I said, “We should go,” almost exactly as Sultan said the same thing.
An old man said we should not tarry. The driver went to the car. Even as we were carrying our gear bags to the car, villagers shouted, “Taliban,” and scattered away from the river. Our driver fled, with the keys. His instincts were immaculate — he survived.
Sultan and I fled a shorter distance, stopped and tried to gauge where we were running, and from whom. Should we stay and hope they did not cross the river toward us, or flee straight across unknown fields and run the risk of being cut down by Taliban in the field ahead of us, shooting at anything that moved?
We hovered, and got caught. The first one to wade across the river hit Sultan with his Kalashnikov and began shouting at him. Then he appeared to calm down, pointed at the car and toward the main road, seemingly ordering us to leave.
We could not, because we did not have the keys. He could not understand why we refused to comply, and became enraged again.
Other Taliban arrived and forced us to wade across the river to the far bank at gunpoint. There was no point trying to resist, Sultan advised, just go with them. I was still carrying my camera equipment and was thinking that at least we had interviews with civilians talking about civilian casualties, which should establish our credentials as journalists who were drawing attention to a controversial NATO strike. This later proved very useful to demonstrate who we were and what we were doing.
I reached the other side of the river and was immediately bound, my hands behind my back, and blindfolded, very badly. One Talib drove off with me on a motorcycle at high speed, crashing at one point as we overbalanced.
Sultan followed behind.
(cont'd)
The Reporter’s Account: 4 Days With the Taliban
Stephen Farrell, NYT, 9 Sep 2009
Part 2 of 3
Once away from immediate pursuit, they transferred me to a waiting car and drove into the dusty back roads of Char Dara District at high speed. “Russian?” one asked me, a question that seemed so out of recent historical context that it made my heart sink.
They unloaded me at a tree and began questioning me, but not in a hostile manner. After half an hour of questions, they summoned more Taliban and drove me back to where Sultan was being held. From that moment on we were not separated.
Apart from the initial swing of the rifle at Sultan right at the outset, neither of us was subjected to any beatings, torture or ill-treatment over the next four days. Quite the reverse — they offered food and water to me even though it was during the Ramadan fast (apart from the first drink at a time when I had been running and fallen off the motorcycle, I declined during the fasting period). Sultan repeatedly prayed alongside them.
For four days they drove us around Char Dara, almost always in the same old Toyota Corolla, sometimes with masked and turbaned motorcycle outriders, rocket-propelled grenades sticking out of backpacks in full daylight, just a few miles from the main Kabul-to-Kunduz road.
They delighted in showing off, at one point driving within 500 meters of what they said were government and NATO watchtowers — gleeful at their daring, at others they drove with headlights full on at night as they moved us from house to house, at least three different buildings a day.
It became a tour of a Taliban-controlled district of Afghanistan, and that control appeared total. At no point did we see a single NATO soldier, Afghan policeman, soldier or any check to the Taliban’s ability to move at will.
We did see two green Afghan police pickup trucks, both full of Taliban fighters and weapons. “This is our jail,” went the running commentary. “This is the checkpoint where we expelled the government forces.”
It felt like a military embed with the American military, except at gunpoint. “You spend enough time with the Americans, you should spend some time with us,” one of the Taliban said, making the comparison explicit. In fact I had not spent any time with the American military in Afghanistan, but it seemed unwise to correct him.
There was no doubting the absolute force of their writ in the area southwest of Kunduz, which we traversed time and again, in an area of cornfields, rice plantations, mud brick villages, waterways and other farmlands, measuring perhaps eight miles long by three or four miles wide. They drove down lanes, through villages, stopping at will and talking to residents, boasting about how the people provided a willing intelligence service to them. The extent of volition was impossible to determine, but the Taliban were the only armed presence I saw there for four days.
Interestingly, they paid when they needed gas for the car, instead of just commandeering it, which they could have easily done. Some villagers appeared very friendly, others more wary and formally polite.
Motorists unfailingly gave way as soon as they saw a Taliban car coming in the other direction, and snapped to a smile and an Islamic greeting. Whether through consent or fear was impossible to read on the faces of villages who were rarely allowed glimpses of us, except at favored stops and safe houses. Then we were paraded to the children in the street: the infidel and his translator, to be laughed at and mocked.
At first they seemed seamlessly efficient — teams of motorcycle riders would come from nowhere, ushering us to our next destination, where we would quickly be guided — not pushed — into a room out of the sight of prying electronic eyes above.
The teams changed — the captor team gave way to the guard team. “We are just looking after you,” one Talib said, bored by yet another attempt to convince him of our credentials as journalists. “The people who captured you, they are checking out whether you are journalists, and independent journalists.”
That was a crucial distinction, Sultan impressed upon me. They seemed to believe we were genuine, not least from their repeated satisfied “aahs” when we played and replayed the video of the tankers, and of a NATO armored car they claimed to have destroyed some days earlier. But their elders remained to be convinced.
There were good hours, and bad ones. Progress and setbacks. They reported to Sultan that their elders — the word “commandant” was used frequently — thought that we were “not security people so are to be treated well.”
But then our status as journalists was called into question again, and it became an endless series of assurances and reassurances. They allowed Sultan to talk to his mother and father, which was encouraging, but on the second day Sultan picked up that they might be seeking money, and on Day 3 an exchange of prisoners. He became glum at this, especially so when two Taliban told him that while they were confident that an exchange could be arranged for me, not so for him.
They offered no evidence of this, or any of the welter of conflicting claims we heard. Indeed, they appeared sometimes to be playing with our heads. “You, three days, Kabul,” one said to me, smiling. And he was the least likely smiler and encourager I had met of the entire crews. Another said 10 to 15 days. It was impossible to read motives behind words.
“Do you know anyone in the government, you should get them to work on this,” one relatively friendly Talib told Sultan early on the final day.
Another reminded him that an Italian journalist had once been exchanged, but his translator was not so fortunate. “He was beheaded,” the unsmiling youngster said, to Sultan’s face. He translated it, faithfully but with a gray face.
Our guards, usually six or eight in number, were hugely unpredictable.
One became enraged when I urinated standing up, deeming it an offense to local families. He then calmed down and asked me to teach him how to count to 10 in English. Another kept trying to convert me to Islam, amid endless conversations with Sultan about Islam, working with Americans and his job.
When they bundled us into cars, they would sit with half a dozen rocket-propelled grenades bouncing around inside the car down rutted country lanes, or Kalashnikovs pointing at our, or their own, heads.
As the days wore on they seemed to be more relaxed with me, more verbally sharp to Sultan. (One Talib apologized for that blow to Sultan in the first minute, saying they could not always get good quality people.)
As Day 2 passed into 3, amid a blur of different houses and days spent sleeping, hoping and worrying, the mood changed. It became harder for them to find safe houses. They would get lost down ever narrower and ever more obscure country lanes. We would arrive at a building late at night, bang on the gate and eventually be admitted — never knowing if the Taliban had just picked on a house at random and demanded entrance or arranged it in advance.
Although their discipline was good in their conduct toward us, their operational security was hopelessly inept. So much so that the supposed team leader would be bellowing my name and the word “journalist” repeatedly into his Nokia cellphone — they all had Nokias operating on almost no battery life and no reception — heedless of who was, almost certainly, monitoring the calls. From the car’s cassette recorder blared the words “Taliban, Taliban” in song.
They were not making it hard.
(cont'd)
Tributes have been paid to a soldier killed during the rescue of a journalist kidnapped in Afghanistan.
Corporal John Harrison, 29, from the Parachute Regiment, was described as "a wonderful son, brother and a dedicated soldier" by his family.
He died in a daring pre-dawn operation on Wednesday to rescue Stephen Farrell, a reporter with the New York Times.
Mr Farrell, who holds dual British and Irish citizenship, was successfully released during the raid but his Afghan interpreter Sultan Munadi also died.
Cpl Harrison's family said: "We are absolutely heartbroken.
"John was a wonderful son, brother and a dedicated soldier who was greatly loved and cherished by all his family and friends."
His commanding officer, whose name was not released by the Ministry of Defence due to the special forces role of the unit, described him as "a tower of strength" and "a remarkable man".
He said: "Cpl John Harrison was an immensely capable, self- effacing and highly likeable soldier with an irrepressible humour.
"His hallmark was an undemonstrative, yet profound, professionalism; he cared deeply about his work, and more deeply still about those he commanded and served alongside.
"He was an unflinching and inspirational man with a deep, deep pool of courage, who died as he lived - at the forefront of his men.
"He gave his life for his comrades and the Parachute Regiment, both of which meant so much to him.
"Although his passing is a sad day for us, every member of the unit counts themselves privileged to have known such a tower of strength and we all are deeply honoured to have served alongside him.
"Our thoughts and prayers now turn to his family and friends at this most difficult time.
"We hope that in the midst of their profound loss, they can draw strength from the fond memories that we all share of this remarkable man."
Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said: "Cpl John Harrison put his life on the line to rescue others.
"He made the ultimate sacrifice and acted heroically in the face of great danger, in the best tradition of the British Armed Forces and in full knowledge of the risks he faced.
"My thoughts are with his family, friends and comrades at this difficult time."
After the death was announced yesterday, Prime Minister Gordon Brown said Cpl Harrison had died "while acting with the greatest of courage in this most dangerous mission".
Mr Brown added: "His bravery will not be forgotten."
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23742867-details/Tributes+paid+to+soldier+killed+during+journalist+ rescue/article.do
The Reaper
09-12-2009, 12:31
Mr. Farrell made a number of bad decisions and exercised poor judgement, for which others have paid.
Now wait for the book and movie deal.:rolleyes:
TR
The part I noticed
".......I was still carrying my camera equipment and was thinking that at least we had interviews with civilians talking about civilian casualties, which should establish our credentials as journalists who were drawing attention to a controversial NATO strike. This later proved very useful to demonstrate who we were and what we were doing........"
POS
Utah Bob
09-14-2009, 08:47
The part I noticed
".......I was still carrying my camera equipment and was thinking that at least we had interviews with civilians talking about civilian casualties, which should establish our credentials as journalists who were drawing attention to a controversial NATO strike. This later proved very useful to demonstrate who we were and what we were doing........"
POS
Yup. Forget about reporting controversial Taliban murders of civilians.:mad:
Source is here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/sep/12/farrell-munadi-war-reporting/print).
Deadlines on the frontline: Stephen Farrell, Sultan Munadi and the perils of war reporting
Kidnapped war reporter Stephen Farrell's rescue led to the death of his Afghan fixer. It's not the first time an unsung local journalist has died in the pursuit of someone else's story
Patrick Barkham
The Guardian, Saturday 12 September 2009
A soldier risks his life on a noble mission to find injured casualties of war deep in Taliban-held territory. He and his right-hand man are kidnapped. The prime minister authorises a raid by special forces to rescue the hostages. During the raid, a commando, several civilians and the right-hand man are killed in a firefight. The soldier is pulled out alive. Within hours of his dramatic rescue, army chiefs, journalists and politicians admonish the soldier, claiming he was reckless and even that he was not worth rescuing.
Such a reaction to a kidnapped soldier would be unthinkable. Substitute "soldier" for "war reporter", however, and the picture is very different. Hours after he was rescued, and saw his Afghan colleague Sultan Munadi slain before him, Stephen Farrell, the New York Times journalist who was kidnapped a week ago while trying to report on claims that 90 people were killed in a botched Nato bombing of northern Afghanistan, was subject to a barrage of criticism.
This traducing of a foreign correspondent seems an odd turn of events. While media comments may be put down to jealousy – Farrell is an uncompromising reporter, and is nicknamed "Robohack" for his obsessive professionalism – the implication of the military's criticism is more profound and worrying. Some, in the British army at least, now want an end to independent reporting in war zones, with all correspondents instead embedded with the military.
Most experienced correspondents agree that war reporting is becoming more treacherous. The once universal idea that journalists are non-combatants and neutral observers of war, and should therefore not be targeted, has been undermined by a number of different trends. The hostility felt in many Islamic countries towards the west is sometimes directed at western journalists – a situation which is exacerbated when some western nations use foreign journalists as spies. Justice can conspire against war reporters, too: those committing war crimes may remember that journalists' reports have been used as evidence against those tried at the international war crimes tribunal in the Hague.
Kidnapping journalists has also become widespread. The brilliant war reporter Patrick Cockburn believes the first time this tactic was used systematically was in Lebanon in 1984. A willingness to kidnap or even kill journalists spread, through the conflicts in Chechnya, where gangsters recognised the profitability of kidnapping, and Afghanistan. By 2001, it was reported that the Taliban were offering a $50,000 bounty for dead western journalists.
War correspondents say Afghanistan is still safer than Iraq at its most dangerous, but was Farrell reckless? In his searing account of the kidnapping, Farrell admitted he and Munadi interviewed local people at the scene of the bombing near Kunduz for an "uncomfortably long" time. "I am comfortable with the decision to go to the riverbank, but fear we spent too long there," he wrote. While at least one colleague at the New York Times has privately questioned Farrell's judgment, his executive editor, Bill Keller, has written that he had seen "no evidence" that Farrell's trip was "reckless or irresponsible". The New York Times has set up a fund for Munadi's family.
Farrell's critics argue he ignored warnings. Even the foreign secretary cast aspersions on the reporter. "He was obviously on the one hand very brave, and on the other hand he went against very strong advice that it was extremely dangerous to be in that area," David Miliband told the BBC.
"If journalists didn't ignore warnings about not going to dangerous places we'd get nothing done. We'd never go anywhere," says Jeremy Bowen, the BBC's Middle East editor. In January, Bowen ignored official warnings to cross the border into Gaza. "Of course journalists ignore official warnings, and local warnings as well. If you go to dangerous places, you have to. You have to have someone who will shine a light on the dark places in the world. Sometimes you have to get close to shine that torch."
Farrell was kidnapped before, in Iraq in 2004 when he was working for the Times. Colleagues there, however, say the suggestion he is a gung-ho reporter is inaccurate. "He's a very applied, diligent, forensic and courageous journalist," says Peter Nicholls, an experienced war photographer for the Times, who worked with Farrell. "He's been around the block, he's got all the badges, he's not out there being unnecessarily brave. He's a very considered, smart guy and he's very committed to his profession."
Cockburn, who also knows him, calls him "a very brave guy". John Simpson, who was in Afghanistan two weeks ago, says of the criticisms: "These are all the moral judgments that people love to come to afterwards. They want answers and someone to blame. In real life, a situation develops unpredictably without any chance to organise things differently. I'm sure, as in my case, Stephen Farrell has done dozens of things that could have gone wrong and thanks to good fortune went right and weren't noticed. Nobody makes any moral judgment about who he is employing then. He was doing a really good job in a place we didn't know was as dangerous as it was."
Beyond the rather callous criticisms of Farrell, the death of Munadi has raised broader concerns about how western news organisations use local journalists. The newly formed Media Club of Afghanistan, for Afghan journalists working for foreign outlets, has expressed fury over his death, and in particular over the fact his body was left behind by the military. As Barry Bearak, former South Asia bureau chief for the New York Times, explained in an online tribute, like most translators Munadi was a highly skilled journalist. "They accompany western reporters into the field, leading as much as following. They are a walking Who's Who, historian, guide, lie detector, supply sergeant, master of logistics, taking equal the risks without equal the glory or pay," he wrote. "One more thing: 'translators' like Mr Munadi take responsibility for the reporter's life."
Most journalists killed in war zones are local journalists. Is this because western journalists have put them in the line of fire? Mona Mahmood worked as a translator and fixer for American and British media groups in Iraq from 2003 to 2006. "This job is the most difficult job you can imagine. It is like jumping in a minefield," she says. According to Mahmood, translators and fixers feel completely responsible for their western charges and often hold their lives in their hands. On one occasion in Iraq, she rebuffed insurgents who offered her $50,000 – half of the profits from a ransom – to hand over the American journalist she was working with. On another, typical occasion in a market, she overheard two men discussing the "spies" – two photojournalists – she had brought there. She told them she would kill them herself if they were spies and remonstrated with the men for their lack of hospitality. She diffused the tension so successfully that the oblivious journalists were invited to tea.
While she saved their lives, did these western reporters expose her to unacceptable risks? "It is your choice [to work for western media] but sometimes they push too much for the story, especially if they have deadlines," she says. During the most dangerous era in Iraq, she would routinely go out alone and bring civilians to correspondents' secure offices for interviews or conduct interviews in the field herself. Working like this for a US newspaper, she would only get an "additional reporting" byline at the end of a story. When she stopped working for the US paper, she was docked three days pay and not given any kind of bonus or thank-you. During the most dangerous era in Iraq, she says, "90% of the work was done by the Iraqis and the fixers."
Maggie O'Kane, the war correspondent who is editorial director of GuardianFilms, now employs Mahmood. O'Kane believes the media must reform this almost colonial relationship with local translators and fixers. "We have grown up with a model of foreign news reporting that goes back to Evelyn Waugh's Scoop and the classic quote from Edward Behr, who said he heard a BBC reporter ask in the Congo: 'Has anybody here been raped and speak English?' We have to move on from that. If there is a woman who has been raped we need to ask her in her own language. You can take people from their own culture and develop a new form of foreign correspondent who is cross-cultural. I'm not saying there aren't huge risks for a local journalist reporting for a British newspaper but we don't have to add to them by putting them with a white westerner."
On GuardianFilms, O'Kane has taken on foreign journalists to film award-winning reports in places like Iraq. "You train local journalists and give them the skills they need, then you afford them all the protection of being a fully paid-up foreign correspondent instead of a more haphazard relationship with the paper," she says. "People have argued for a long time that indigenous journalists can't produce the kind of writing that engages western readers, but Ghaith Abdul-Ahad has proved that is wrong. He has won foreign correspondent of the year and he is a beautiful writer, and he has been helped to develop those skills."
[CONTINUED BELOW]
[CONTINUED FROM ABOVE]Abdul-Ahad is currently in Afghanistan for the Guardian and was in the same region as Farrell when he was kidnapped. As an Iraqi who is fluent in Arabic and can also speak Farsi, Abdul-Ahad does not always need a translator or fixer but instead relies on a network of contacts which he hopes provide him with security. "Sometimes local journalists are treated as second-class journalists and that is not acceptable," he says. But he argues that westerners with a commitment to independent reporting such as Farrell can contribute as much as indigenous journalists. "The whole concept of a foreign correspondent is you go to a different place and come with a fresh perspective."
Like other war correspondents, Abdul-Ahad is outraged by the criticisms of Farrell. The New York Times reporter, he says, is motivated by the same ideal as he is: giving voice to the voiceless and exposing what the authorities don't want you to see. "Without making it sound grand, it's going to a place where people wouldn't want you to go and telling a story that is difficult to get. When this Kunduz bombing happened, something inside you tells you someone is lying and someone is trying to hide something."
In the raid that rescued Farrell, Corporal John Harrison was among those killed. Brigadier Gordon Messenger, a former commander in Helmand Province, undoubtedly articulated the views of many in the military when he said his "strong preference" was for journalists "to be embedded with a unit and therefore that unit has direct responsibility for their security. Any journalist operating outside that provides the military with an additional complication they could do without." The policy of embedding correspondents with military units – giving them some security and unrivalled access to one side of the story, but limiting their ability to report freely – has already expanded hugely since the Gulf War. It is likely the Farrell kidnapping will only increase the impetus to embed journalists.
There is no doubt it's what the government would like. Bill Rammell, the minister for the armed forces, says: "Freedom of the press, even in areas of conflict, is fundamental to UK society and the MOD is always keen to show the excellent work of the British Armed Forces on operations. History shows that it is safer for journalists to embed officially with UK or allied forces and we provide embed opportunities to as many media outlets as possible."
The only ITV news journalists currently in Afghanistan are embedded with British or American troops. "In Helmand Province, for TV teams carrying conspicuous equipment it is impossible in my view to operate safely without being embedded," says David Mannion, editor-in-chief of ITV news. "It's not ideal but it's better than nothing and there are advantages in being with allied troops. They can take you to the point of the spear, where it's difficult to go independently."
We may be moving to a future when there are hardly any independent journalists left to report these murky, asymmetric conflicts, fears Cockburn. "With a really big story like Afghanistan people will go on reporting it but when it became extremely dangerous for journalists in Chechnya – a story the foreign media wasn't particularly interested in – a lot of news organisations thought it wasn't worth it. You can see it in Somalia. A lot of editors feel it just isn't worth the risk," he says.
While reporters and editors weigh up the risks, Farrell will return over and over again to the death of Munadi. A former colleague says he "will be absolutely mortified by people dying as a result of what he's done" and obsessively questioning his own professionalism. The trite stereotype is that war reporters grow impervious to emotion but it is striking how those who have lost indigenous colleagues speak of their deaths and their feelings of responsibility. Simpson delivered probably his most powerful dispatch ever seconds after US friendly fire blew up the convoy he was travelling with in northern Iraq in 2003, which killed his Kurdish translator, Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed.
"I don't think there is a day when I don't think about Kamaran and I don't think there is a day when I haven't blamed myself in one way or another for taking him with me. The fact that he was so anxious to work with us doesn't change that," he says. "Sure, you might have expected that the American forces wouldn't fire on another American convoy but war is war and dreadful things happen, stupid, stupid things happen and people get hyped up and excited. I don't know what else I would have done, but it does weigh heavily on me."
Jeremy Bowen lost his friend, BBC producer and driver Abed Takkoush when an Israeli tank fired a shell at their car in 2000. "I didn't pull the trigger – an Israeli soldier pulled the trigger – but we were only there because I said I'd go and he came with me," he says. "Of course I feel guilty about it. I feel terrible about it. I'm certain that Stephen Farrell will be thinking about the implications of his decision to go there for that story for a long time. He would have to be made of stone if he didn't."
The view from here:
'It was a story that had to be told'
Harriet Sherwood, head of international news at the Guardian
When news came of Farrell's kidnap, our reporter Ghaith Abdul-Ahad was already en route to Kunduz. It was a moment to pause, assess the situation and decide whether Ghaith should continue with the plan to report the aftermath of the airstrike.
We already knew that this was a dangerous mission, and had discussed the risks with him. On balance, we felt that Ghaith's experience in conflict zones and the fact that he is not a westerner meant the risk was one we – including Ghaith, of course – were prepared to take for this story.
And it was a story that needed to be told. Conflicting accounts of the airstrike, and especially the extent of civilian casualties, demanded on-the-ground reporting. This is precisely why Farrell was there, too.
The terrible outcome of the operation to rescue Farrell forced us to review our decisions. Ghaith himself wanted to see the job through, but we had to consider our responsibilities both as his employer and towards anyone else who might have got caught up in any trouble. After much discussion, we agreed on a compromise: we forbade Ghaith to go to the villages near the site of the airstrike, but allowed him to stay in relatively-safe Kunduz and persuade witnesses to come to him. The results are on today's front page.
In the six years that I've been running the Guardian's foreign news coverage, there have been countless occasions when we've had to make quick but critical decisions about the safety of our reporters. The central question is always the same: is the story worth the risk? Asking questions, finding witnesses and piecing together evidence can't be done from a desk in a safe city. I would never send a reporter into a dangerous situation against his or her will – and have, on occasion, insisted that they withdraw. Simple fact: dead journalists can't tell stories. But the judgments – often lightning decisions taken without full possession of all the facts – are never easy.
A question. If journalists are going to insist on putting themselves at risk and the lives of their countrymen in danger in their pursuit of the truth, why shouldn't their employers be responsible for their safety?