The interview in question, by the CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley, was broadcast on “60 Minutes” in March 2007. (CBS)A First Amendment case is escalating between CBS News and a military court over a “60 Minutes” report about an attack at Haditha, Iraq. The network is trying to keep the government from getting hold of unaired portions of an interview with an officer who is being prosecuted over the incident.
So far, CBS is losing. Last week a Navy-Marine Corps Court of Appeals ruled that the government should be allowed to view the material it wants, the parts of a CBS interview with Staff Sgt. Frank D. Wuterich that were not broadcast. Staff Sgt. Wuterich faces charges that include voluntary manslaughter in the deaths of Iraqi civilians at Haditha in November 2005.
A spokeswoman for CBS said the network is “planning to pursue an appeal” of the military court’s decision. The next-highest court is an appeals court representing all the armed forces.
Earlier on, the government had issued a subpoena the videotape of the “60 Minutes” interview, and a military judge had quashed it. But the Court of Appeals ruled that the military judge had been wrong to do so and rejected CBS’s motion to dismiss the appeal.
The appeals court directed the military judge to conduct “additional fact-finding,” including a private review of the unaired CBS material, to determine if the parts of the interview that were not broadcast were “relevant and necessary” to the sergeant’s prosecution.
The interview, by the CBS News correspondent Scott Pelley, was broadcast on “60 Minutes” in March 2007. Government lawyers are trying to assess whether Staff Sgt. Wuterich said anything in the unaired portions of the interview that would be pertinent to their case. CBS asserted its First Amendment privilege in the case, stating that it would not hand over news-gathering material.
In a motion to dismiss in February, CBS said “the subpoena would be ‘unreasonable and oppressive,’ and turn a news organization into an investigative arm of the government,” the Associated Press reported.
Floyd Abrams, the noted First Amendment lawyer, said that CBS and other television news organizations have fought similar government assertions in the past.
“Broadcasters receive a significant number of subpoenas seeking their interviews, their outtakes, and sometimes their confidential sources,” Mr. Abrams said. He said he had worked with CBS on other cases in the past, but did not know the specifics of this case.
February 22: Military Subpoenas CBS Haditha Video (CBSNews.com)
Find TV listings with this 
A daily updated summary of the week in television by The New York Times.
For adventures in digital culture, don't miss The Medium, a blog by Virginia Heffernan.
8 Comments
It is high time the media learns it is not above the law, and cannot hide behind the first amendment as a license to do whatever they please.
— JosephWhen the government wants access to private material, they usually get their way. When citizens file Freedom of Information Act requests, they are typically ignored under a directive by Ashcroft that agencies can “ignore” such requests by allowing them to sit unanswered; a directive that Gonzales and Mukasey have seen fit to let stand.
Then we have the Bush policy of using “State Secrets Privilege” to hide anything inconvenient, such as energy policy meetings and testimony requested in court proceedings.
Who are the citizens and who are the masters?
— FredI don’t see why a military court has ultimate authority over a civilian entity, such as a news organization. Ultimately I can’t imagine this issue being resolved by any court lower than the US Supreme court, which is a civilian court.
— BobDAt BobD:
The military does not operate under a differnt set of laws (don’t confuse regulations with laws). The military judicial system is no different than the federal, state, or local judicial systems in that it enforces the laws of this nation. Just like every other court, it has authority over cases falling under its exclusive jurisdiction, which are those offenses that are purely military in nature. In these cases, it is no different than a federal court in issuing a subpoena, for example. US citizens and organizations are required, by law, to comply with those subpoenas. Remember, we are not talking about prosecuting civilians, only compelling civilians and civilian entities to comply with subpoenas issued under US law.
You see the converse much more often, when a military member is prosecuted in a civil court for offenses that are not purely military in nature. While the military justice system still has jurisdiction over military members regardless of the circumstances, its jurisdiction is entirely penal or discliplinary in nature. It has no authority to level civil fines, damages, return of property, etc. In most of those cases the interests of the civilian court outweigh the interests of the military court, so the military members is turned over to civil authorities for prosecution. In these cases, civilian courts can subpoena military members and organizations when prosecuting these cases.
— MichaelJIt’s weird but, for some reason, if I don’t get my propaganda sufficiently redacted by the military, it just makes it that much harder to go to the mall and max out my credit card.
— Tom JeffersonIf the media think they have problems, with keeping their news exclusive, and allowing only what they wish, to be published now, they had better take a look around the world, in all the Socialist run countries. If they can find one with freedom of the press, and a middle class, I wish they would tell us which one it is.
— ShirleyAThis is the only country that guarantees freedom of speech and the right to keep from publishing the source.
Even in Great Britain, they can dictate whether or not a story can be published, based on national security, or the right, of an individual, for the protection of that individual, as in kidnapping cases, or terrorist acts. They can prosecute those who try to go against this law.
Maybe the media should think about being more responsible in their use of news reporting, for more than making money from it. Freedom of Speech brings with it Responsibility, which has been lacking over the past twenty years or so and could easily be revoked, should they push forward the wrong agenda to the public and get what they desire.
“As the expression goes be careful what you wish for.”
The media is not above the law - but neither is the military. The writers of the constitution understood the importance of a free press and granted it a number of rights so that all Americans can remain informed.
— DavidHey Joe…………if not for the media the government would and could do anything they want to anyone they want anytime they want. Who else is going to spend serious money and time to watch over the rights of the citizens of our country?
— robert