Ombudsman: Military should take panel’s advice, better publicize judicial hearings

[unhappycamper]

Ombudsman: Military should take panel’s advice, better publicize judicial hearings
By Dave Mazzarella, Stars and Stripes ombudsman
Mideast edition, Tuesday, September 2, 2008

Granted, military life is not the same as civilian life when it comes to the exercise of some individual privileges and rights. But one would expect that when it comes to rights guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution and upheld by the Supreme Court, what holds for one sphere would hold for the other.

Such is often not the case with respect to public knowledge of and participation in judicial trials. The First Amendment of the Constitution and the highest court say the public and the press have a right to know about such proceedings. And the Sixth Amendment gives defendants the right to a public trial. In civilian life, schedules — called dockets — of hearings and trials are routinely released to the public. A reporter, or any citizen, can find them posted in hard copy in court facilities, or online. In the military, by contrast, you can be sure that those rights are being subverted every day somewhere in the U.S. military universe. That’s because commands can make it extremely difficult if not impossible for the press and citizens to learn what hearings and trials are held when, for whom and why.

Reporters covering the military have known this forever. Stars and Stripes reporters have been especially aware of the problem. Cases of servicemembers facing Article 32 (akin to grand jury) hearings or courts-martial are an everyday concern of theirs. Now a journalists’ advocacy group, the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press (RCFP), and academics from the Tully Free Speech Center at Syracuse University, have collaborated on a formal study showing just how tight-lipped the military can be.

In a survey of 75 bases worldwide, they found that 45 percent refused to provide information on scheduled Article 32 hearings, and 37 percent declined to disclose any schedule of courts-martial. More than one-third of those bases that did agree to provide docketing information "still withheld basic details such as the defendant’s name or the criminal charge," a report by the group said.

Over the years, Stripes reporters have echoed those findings. One problem is that information can be sought only through public affairs offices, which in turn have to get it from the legal authorities. These entities sometimes are generous with the information and sometimes not. Another problem is that in most of the services, the information is considered releasable to the public and media, but only after inquiry about a specific case. Obviously, if the reporter doesn’t know that a particular case is coming up for hearings, he or she can’t "inquire" about it. That is tantamount to keeping the proceedings secret.


Rest of article at: http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=125&article=57135