More at Wired News

The U.S. military in Iraq has imprisoned an Associated Press photographer for five months, accusing him of being a security threat but never filing charges or permitting a public hearing.

Military officials said Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi citizen, was being held for “imperative reasons of security” under United Nations resolutions. AP executives said the news cooperative’s review of Hussein’s work did not find anything to indicate inappropriate contact with insurgents, and any evidence against him should be brought to the Iraqi criminal justice system.

Hussein, 35, is a native of Fallujah who began work for the AP in September 2004. He photographed events in Fallujah and Ramadi until he was detained on April 12 of this year.

“We want the rule of law to prevail. He either needs to be charged or released. Indefinite detention is not acceptable,” said Tom Curley, AP’s president and chief executive officer.

Source:Richard’s Notes

Obviously there are two sides to this story but you would have thought if there was any evidence against this chap then something would have been done in those 5 months. It is a sorry time when just the accusation of “terrorism” is enough to lock someone up for months on end without even a passing wiff of any legal movement.

It seems the allegations are about his associations. I knew a policeman who had informants in the criminal underbelly of the city where he worked. There are also long histories of journalists getting friendly with criminals to uncover big stories. Could be this is the case here. Could also be of course that the AP were duped and he really is a terrorist, they do say they knew very little of him before working with the guy.

Either way though, just an allegation really ought to not be enough?

With any big story like Iraq it is important to get good, accurate reporting and images that aim to tell as true a story as possible. Actions like this could cause a chilling effect on photographers getting involved.

Technorati Tags: journalism, photography, iraq, associated, press, photographer, news

amateur and professional photographers all over the country are being stopped and harassed with no legal basis. As digital cameras proliferate wildly, so do attempts to restrict what you can shoot and how you can use the picture. And not all attempts to quash photography have to do with national security concerns. Some invoke copyright and trademark protection, others the privacy both of celebrities and ordinary people. But you can fight back. Knowing your rights and restrictions as a photographer is a good first step. When cases reach the point of legal proceedings, they’re usually settled in the photographer’s favor, according to lawyers who have represented photographers in court. However, sometimes your own understanding of the law isn’t enough. According to his suit, when Jim McKinniss told the police officers that he was on public property and thought it was legal to photograph, “One of the officers asked if [I] had heard about September 11 and asserted that, since the terrorist attacks…it was illegal to photograph bridges, airports, and refineries.”

This is a crock. There’s no law in California or anywhere else in the U.S. that prohibits shooting such places from a public locale. You can even photograph inside airports, if you don’t point your camera at security checkpoints.

“These laws just don’t exist,” explains McKinniss’s attorney, Robert Myers, who took his case pro bono. “A law that attempts to prohibit photography from places open to the general public would be unconstitutional.”

The piece features some great, quite scary, stories plus some tips on how to handle the situation if it ever happens to you.

Technorati Tags: photography, law, tips, news