NYT reporter freed in raid; Afghan translator dies

[ClearedHot]

Two guys died (one translator and a British Commando), I wonder if he will wrap himself in the 1st amendment and publish photos of the guys who died so that he could live?

Story here.

KABUL – British commandos freed a New York Times reporter early Wednesday from Taliban captives who kidnapped him over the weekend in northern Afghanistan, but one of the commandos and a Times translator were killed in the rescue, officials said.

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.

One British service member died during the early morning raid, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said, while the Times reported that Farrell's Afghan translator, Sultan Munadi, 34, also was killed. Brown said that "we send his family our condolences." Farrell was unhurt.

Gunfire rang out from multiple sides during the rescue, and a Taliban commander who was in the house was killed, along with the owner of the house and a woman, said Mohammad Sami Yowar, a spokesman for the Kunduz governor.

Munadi was killed in the midst of the firefight, he said.

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 reported that while Farrell and Munadi were interviewing Afghans near the site of the bombing, an old man approached them and warned them to leave. Soon after, gunshots rang out and people shouted that the Taliban were approaching.

Police had warned reporters who traveled to the capital of Kunduz to cover the tanker strike that the village in question was controlled by the Taliban and it would be dangerous to go there.

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.

British special forces dropped down from helicopters early Wednesday onto the house where the two were being kept, and a gunbattle broke out, Yowar said.

Farrell, 46, 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.

"I dived in a ditch," said Farrell. Moments later, he said he heard British voices and shouted, "British hostage!" The British voices told him to come over. As he did, Farrell said he saw Munadi.

"He was lying in the same position as he fell," Farrell told the Times. "That's all I know. I saw him go down in front of me. He did not move. He's dead. He was so close, he was just two feet in front of me when he dropped."

The British prime minister said the operation was carried out after "extensive planning and consideration," and that those involved knew the high risks they faced. Brown called the mission "breathtaking heroism."

"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," Brown said.

Munadi was first employed by The New York Times 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.

In a New York Times Web blog this month, Munadi wrote that he would never leave Afghanistan permanently and that "being a journalist is not enough; it will not solve the problems of Afghanistan. I want to work for the education of the country, because the majority of people are illiterate."

"And if I leave this country, if other people like me leave this country, who will come to Afghanistan?" he wrote. "Will it be the Taliban who come to govern this country? That is why I want to come back, even if it means cleaning the streets of Kabul. That would be a better job for me, rather than working, for example, in a restaurant in Germany."

Though much of military effort in Afghanistan is focused on the volatile south, Kunduz and some other northern provinces have been increasingly hit by attacks over the past year, and officials say the security situation appears to be deteriorating there.

Farrell joined the Times in 2007 in Baghdad. He has covered both the Afghan and Iraq conflicts for the paper.

He was briefly held hostage with a group of journalists traveling in Iraq in 2004, when he was working for The Times of London. Militants questioned him and the others for about 10 hours before letting them go, he told CNN afterward.

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 Kabul and were moved across the border.

[ClearedHot]

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.

The AP is a classless business that can stick their double-standard up their collective arses. Please defenders of the press come justify these actions...never mind, its not worth it.

[Wolf424]

The AP is a classless business that can stick their double-standard up their collective arses. Please defenders of the press come justify these actions...never mind, its not worth it.

2

I wrote a whole reply about this, but CH basically summed it up.

[Steve Davies]

-hypocrites. How long did it take them to report Pfc Bergdahl's abduction?

I don't know how things work in the US, but the UK government has a voluntary agreement with the media here that ensures this sort of thing doesn't happen - the government will brief the media in exchange for their silence for as long as is required. There is also such a thing as a DA notice that the government can slap on a story that legally prevents its publication on the grounds of national security.

The system works very well because everyone 'wins', and a great example is the 2007 kidnap in Iraq of five British nationals, the full names and backgrounds of four of whom were only reported following news of their deaths.

Regarding Bergdahi, if your government doesn't have a deal with the US media on matters of life and death like this, then I would be very surprised.

The Timescan make a request to the AP to not publish a story and they will heedit?

I would imagine that there is much more to this than meets the eye, especially given the swift recovery of the British national and that fact that some kidnappers (remarkably enough) threaten to kill the hostage(s) if the media cover the story.

But, in any case, you've really got to have a problem with the media if you try and compare publishing a photo of someone who later died with the decision not to run a story about someone who could die if you did otherwise!

Please defenders of the press come justify these actions...never mind, its not worth it.

Too late, I already did. See above.

[ClearedHot]

The system works very well because everyone 'wins', and a great example is the 2007 kidnap in Iraq of five British nationals, the full names and backgrounds of four of whom were only reported following news of their deaths.

Yeah that was a real win for the families of the four who died...can't think of anything better than publishing their names in the press YGBFSM!

But, in any case, you've really got to have a problem with the media if you try and compare publishing a photo of someone who later died with the decision not to run a story about someone who could die if you did otherwise!

Do not make up stuff about which you know nothing about. If you have facts that prove they would have be killed, please publish them, if not, then do not build a straw man argument to throw an insult.

Too late, I already did. See above.

Actually, you did not.

Edited September 9, 2009 by ClearedHot

[Steve Davies]

Actually, you did not.

Then let me enunciate:

You cannot compare publishing a picture of somebody who later died, with holding back on publishing a story about someone who might die if you went to print with it.

These two actions are not contradictory, and they are not an example of a double standard.

[ClearedHot]

Then let me enunciate:

You cannot compare publishing a picture of somebody who later died, with holding back on publishing a story about someone who might die if you went to print with it.

These two actions are not contradictory, and they are not an example of a double standard.

Your argument is baseless without facts. You assume that is the case in order to benefit your case as a member of the press.

And for the record, i did compare the two and stand by it.

[Steve Davies]

Yeah that was a real win for the families of the four who died...can't think of anything better than publishing their names in the press YGBFSM!

Why are you taking my comments out of context?

We are talking about the relationship between the media and the goverment here. My post, as you know very well, was not addressing the utterly horrific experience of the families and victims, but an example of how media and government can work together amiably when required.

Donot make up stuff about which you know nothing about. If you havefacts that prove they would have be killed, please publish them, ifnot, then do not build a straw man argument to throw an insult.

Making stuff up? WTF?!

The Marine was dead when the photograph was published. Fact. This man was alive when the PA agreed not to publish. Fact. AQ-sympathising hostage takers in the Middle East have previously shunned media attention and threatened to kill hostages if their wishes are not met. Fact. The British Government exercises a media blackout whenever SF operations are being planned or executed. Fact. Media outlets are regularly compliant with requests to limit their coverage of hostage situations. Fact. We don't know the whole story here. Fact.

Why, therefore, am I not permitted to caution another poster that he might want to wait for all the facts to become known before he starts judging someone else?

Wow, you really have got a problem with the media.

Your argument is baseless without facts. You assume that is the case in order to benefit your case as a member of the press.

And for the record, i did compare the two and stand by it.

I am not a member of the press. I am a small time writer working in a niche field who is self employed and simply loves to write. Like you, I have very little time for the mainstream press, in fact.

My argument is supported by a number of facts. Perhaps the most important fact is that we don't know exactly what happened. However, I see that this little point has not stopped you from forming an opinion and voicing it loudly!

[ClearedHot]

Why are you taking my comments out of context?

We are talking about the relationship between the media and the goverment here. My post, as you know very well, was not addressing the utterly horrific experience of the families and victims, but an example of how media and government can work together amiably when required.

You sir called said everyone "wins", I fail to see how the family wins, your comment, not mine.

Making stuff up? WTF?!

The Marine was dead when the photograph was published. Fact. This man was alive when the PA agreed not to publish. Fact. AQ-sympathising hostage takers in the Middle East have previously shunned media attention and threatened to kill hostages if their wishes are not met. Fact. The British Government exercises a media blackout whenever SF operations are being planned or executed. Fact. Media outlets are regularly compliant with requests to limit their coverage of hostage situations. Fact. We don't know the whole story here. Fact.

Why, therefore, am I not permitted to caution another poster that he might want to wait for all the facts to become known before he starts judging someone else?

Wow, you really have got a problem with the media.

#1. I could care less how the British media deal with SF operations, we were talking about a request from one news organization to another...which was honored, when in another case the family of a dead serviceman saw their request thrown in the trash.

#2. If we don't know the whole story (fact as you posted), then you don't know that was the case in this situation, so using that to say I prefer to see someone die is rubbish.

#3. Having been a victim of the press and their immoral double-standards, yes I do have a problem with them.

Try putting your arse in harms way in defense of your country only to have the press completely bollocks the facts and see how you feel. Take it a step further and see how you feel when your service points out the errors and the press refuses to acknowledge let alone publish their errors. The truly sickening part is for every picture of a dead Marine their are probably hundreds of pictures of American and Coalition soldiers doing great things for the people of Afghanistan, but they never make the front page. Bunch of freaking ghouls.

Edited September 9, 2009 by ClearedHot

[Steve Davies]

You sir called said everyone "wins", I fail to see how the family wins, your comment, not mine.

Yes, CH, I did. But what was the context? If you cannot accept that the context is key to interpreting what I said, then you must honestly believe that I don't give a shit about the families, or see them as inconsequential in some way.

#1. Icould care less how the British media deal with SF operations, we weretalking about a request from one news organization to another...whichwas honored, when in another case the family of a dead serviceman sawtheir request thrown in the trash.

I wasn't drawing a comparison. I was trying to explain that the media and Government can work together; that the media, much as they often deserve contempt, do sometimes do the right thing as a collective.

#2. If we don't know thewhole story (fact as you posted), then you don't know that was the casein this situation, so using that to say I prefer to see someone die isrubbish.

True - when I say we don't know the full facts, that includes me.

#3. Having been a victim of the press and their immoral double-standards, yes I do have a problem with them.

Which is fine. But I would have thought that you would know that I am not a typical member of the media (I am not Press, as I said). It's a real shame that you have tarred me with the same brush.

Tryputting your arse in harms way in defence of your country only to havethe press completely bollocks the facts and see how you feel. Take ita step further and see how you feel when your service points out theirerrors and the refuse to acknowledge let alone publish theirerrors. The truly sickening part is for every picture of a dead Marinetheir are probably hundreds of pictures of American and Coalitionsoldiers doing great things for the people of Afghanistan, but theynever make the front page. Bunch of freaking ghouls.

I cannot argue with you that the mainstream media follow the political agendas of their paymasters and owners; I know this to be abundantly true. I just don't believe - cannot believe - that every single reporter and editor on the mainstream media is a freaking ghoul.

[Guest CA]

freaking ghoul.

Didn't you say that's what you were going as for halloween?

[ClearedHot]

It just gets better

Stephen Farrell's Release: Questions About British Raid

A British commando raid on a Taliban hideout rescued kidnapped New York Times reporter Stephen Farrell on Sept. 9. But Farrell's Afghan translator Sultan Munadi and a woman and child were killed in the raid, raising questions about whether military force should have been used.

Farrell and Munadi were captured by Taliban gunmen on Sept. 5 while reporting on the aftermath of a NATO air strike on two hijacked fuel tankers. The strike killed more than 90 Afghans and stoked outrage about the frequent deaths of Afghan civilians in coalition air attacks. Soon after the pair were grabbed, their newspaper opened up channels to Taliban commanders in Kunduz, the province in northern Afghanistan where the hostage-taking occurred. Officials from the International Committee for the Red Cross were in direct contact with the captors, according to a source familiar with the negotiations, as were sympathetic local Afghans and tribal elders with ties to the Taliban.

Negotiators were "optimistic" that Farrell and Munadi would be freed within days, without payment of a ransom. Hostage-taking is a long-standing Afghan practice and almost always ends with captives being freed in exchange for money after days or weeks of haggling. But in this case, sources tell TIME, the senior Taliban commanders of Kunduz were "acting reasonably" and seemed willing to hand the reporter and his aide over without a payoff.

Hours before the British raid, Munadi was allowed to place a cell-phone call to his worried parents to reassure them that he and Farrell would soon be released. When the British commandos made their surprise attack on the house where the pair were being held, the two men rushed out. Munadi died in the firefight, shouting, "Journalist! Journalist!" Farrell recounted to his Times colleagues in Kabul. "He was lying in the same position as he fell," Farrell said. "That's all I know. I saw him go down in front of me. He did not move. He's dead. He was so close, he was just two feet in front of me when he dropped."

It is unclear whether Munadi was shot by his British rescuers or by the Taliban. Locals tell TIME that a woman and child in the house were killed along with a Taliban commander named Baz.

The Times' Kabul bureau had asked the British embassy there - Farrell holds Irish and British passports - to use a military rescue mission only as a last resort, since negotiations were under way to free the two reporters and any rescue attempt would imperil them. But 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.

The British SAS team, which had one commando killed during the firefight, according to NATO officials in Kabul, flew off in a helicopter with Farrell but left Munadi's body behind. The translator's grieving relatives made the dangerous journey from Kabul to Kunduz to pick up the body. Munadi had returned briefly to Kabul during a break from graduate school in Germany and was working part-time for the Times, accompanying journalists on their increasingly dangerous forays out of the capital.

The Times' Kabul bureau is still recovering from an earlier kidnapping of correspondent David Rohde, which dragged on for seven months before he and his translator were able to escape.

With Rohde's kidnapping, as with Farrell's, the Times and other media organizations maintained a news blackout, said Bill Keller, the Times' executive editor, for fear that coverage of their plight would "raise the temperature and increase the risk to the captives." Quoted in his newspaper, Keller went on to add, "We're overjoyed that Steve is free, but deeply saddened that his freedom came at such a cost. We are doing all we can to learn the details of what happened. Our hearts go out to Sultan's family."

[Steve Davies]

Quoted in his newspaper, Keller went on to add, "We're overjoyed that Steve is free, but deeply saddened that his freedom came at such a cost. We are doing all we can to learn the details of what happened. Our hearts go out to Sultan's family."

But not the family of the British soldier?

[Lord B]

But not the family of the British soldier?

2

Simply disheartening.

[ClearedHot]

But not the family of the British soldier?

The NY Times could care less about the British Soldier, it does not matter in their business model.

Him Him

[Wolf424]

2

Simply disheartening.

3

Him Him

[Guest Lockjaw25]

Next up: The Times will launch an investigative report which will condemn the SAS for shooting the translator. Sources: Taliban interviews. Case closed, more papers sold, more bad military press. Mission accomplished. But hey, I could be wrong...won't hold my breath, though.

Here's the to the Brit commando, whose sacrifice has clearly been overlooked by these people. UFB.

[JarheadBoom]

Neither the Times nor Farrell's family were warned of the impending raid.

Well, at least someone made a good decision in this clusterfuck.

to the SAS blokes, and to the family of the soldier killed.

And... a big to the NYT.

[Steve Davies]

SBS led the raid.

Bloke killed was a Para from the Special Forces Support Group, 1 Para. I wish the media would stop callling him a Commando - he would be offended not to be afforded his proper title!

[MKopack]

Whether or not this is his standard of reporting, I don't know - I don't watch much CNN...

Mike

One common goal

Anderson Cooper

Posted: 11:15 AM ET

“What’s your blood type?”

It’s the question you’re asked around here a lot. Before getting into a helicopter, before going out on patrol with a new unit. “What’s your blood type?”

The Marines have their blood type sewn into the patches they wear along with their name and rank. Many write it in black marker on the band of their goggles. I know some guys who even have it tattooed on their chests, just above their heart. At first, the question surprised me, now it’s just a routine part of the introduction.

When you’re an embedded reporter moving from base to base, you meet new Marines all the time. At first some are wary of reporters, but go out on a foot patrol with a platoon for several hours in a combat zone, and very quickly the wariness breaks down, especially when they see you don’t have an agenda.

“My wife emailed me,” one Marine said to me this morning. “She said you’re reporting the real stuff we’re doing here. Thanks.” He made my day.

I know it sounds corny, but it’s impossible not to want to do right by these Marines. To get the story right. They are separated from their families, far from home, living in dust and dirt, putting their lives on the line every day.

They are doing it for their families, for each other, and for us, but they are also doing it for Afghans, many of whom are still on the fence about their presence here.

Most people in the U.S. probably think this war is all about hunting down the Taliban. It’s not. The mission is far more complex. The Marines’ goal in Helmand province is to protect the population.

This is not a war about territory, or enemy body count, it is about protecting people, building confidence, convincing Afghans to choose sides. This is not the traditional role played by Marines, but they are adapting, and despite frustrations, and growing losses and difficulties, the Marines I’m with express a real sense of accomplishment and deep pride.

Many Marines here have already done multiple tours in Iraq. For others, this is their first deployment. I’ve met career Marines here, and some young men who plan to get out of the Corps as soon as their enlistment is up. Some love the mission, others can’t wait to get out.

The Marines here are as varied as the American population. What sets them apart, however, what they have in common, is their dedication. Despite their differences as individuals, they are willing to sacrifice for a common goal. It is humbling to witness. It is, I think, important to remember.

[Murph]

Davies is correct about the agencies. SBS w/ 1 Para.

Good SBS and Para books = John Parker's SBS: The Inside Story of the Special Boat Service and Patrick Bishop's 3 PARA: Afghanistan 2006.

[Steve Davies]

Whether or not this is his standard of reporting, I don't know - I don't watch much CNN...

Mike

Mike

According to posters on a British Army forum I visit who have met him, the NYT reporter is something of an egotist. Your CNN guy seems to be of a different ilk.

Another example of an embed who is not a freakin' Ghoul is Ross Kemp, who the spent quite a bit of time under fire in Helmand. Despite his employer being the same Australian twat that owns Fox, the NYT and the WSJ, his reporting was balanced, politically-neutral and well received by the British Army.

Oh, and Michael Yon is another very good freelancer (ex-SF, IIRC).

Edited September 10, 2009 by Steve Davies

[Guest Hueypilot812]

Mike

According to posters on a British Army forum I visit who have met him, the NYT reporter is something of an egotist. Your CNN guy seems to be of a different ilk.

Steve,

While I do believe that certain networks/papers/mags have their various political leanings, I feel that most of the media "bias" seen out there has to do with exactly what you state. Many are very egotistic and have misconceptions that military personnel are generally poor saps that had no other choice but to join or are simply too stupid to make it in the "real world".

Anyone out there that knows of a certain C-130 navigator who claimed she was a reporter for ABC (or whatever network, it's been a while so I've forgotten) knows what I'm talking about. Talk about someone who thinks they are very special...

[Steve Davies]

Huey

Yes, some of the more astute media over here have spent quite a bit of time grilling members of their own profession about the conduct - specifically, the motives and decision making - of freelancers and embeds in AFG and Iraq. I know that it cannot be a new phenomenon, but I certainly don't recall these sorts of issues rearing their ugly heads when the press covered war zones in the past (Balkans, Falklands and so on).

Cheers

[ClearedHot]

It escapes me how some fall for the media is out to find the truth routine.

Some of the embeds are good dudes trying to get to the truth, but that truth rarely sees the light of day. Army SF teams helping to rebuild roads and schools never makes the front page. Marines helping secure a new clean water supply is never a headline. Airmen helping to rebuild the Afghan Air Force does not sell papers. Thousands of Afghans inoculated against dangerous disease for the first time in their lives is pushed to the side in favor of a roadside bomb. Instead we are bombarded with a steady stream of negative stories and pictures of bombs and destruction, it is an insurgency for gods sake, that stuff is going to happen. Unfortunately the media perpetuates the bad and we as a nation respond to the case the media makes rather than the reality of the situation. The ghouls in charge of these papers and networks are only trying to sell papers and ad time, the truth is of no concern to them.

In all honesty, I believe the media is a large part of the problem in Iraq and Afghanistan. The bad guys main target is not the indigenous people of either country, like Vietnam it is the American public they are playing to. They know we are quick to anger, but loathe to sustain in a slog, which all insurgencies are.

I swore an oath to the Constitution and right in the front it protects the press so don't confuse my criticism as a call for censorship . That being said, I will never put the media on the pedestal they put themselves on.

Edited September 11, 2009 by ClearedHot