[The Old Hoosier]

The guy whose life would have been in danger was not a CNN reporter--he was an Iraqi working as a camera man. He and his family would have been in danger unless CNN offered to have him and his entire extended family relocated. Doesn't sound very good.

[Howlin]

He and his family would have been in danger unless CNN offered to have him and his entire extended family relocated.

So they lied to the American public for TWELVE YEARS to protect one guy that they could have taken out of Iraq?

I don't think so.

They lied for ACCESS, and gave aid and comfort to the enemies of this country.

[DannyTN]

If they can pay AlQaeda hundreds of thousands of dollars for tapes, they can pay to relocate a few Iraqi's.


The cameraman was still a CNN employee. They reported earlier (last week) that torture of journalists were common. If a free press can be intimidated so easily, it's not much of a free press. And torture of people working for foriegn firms would not have gone on, if it was routinely reported and people knew about it.

It's still complicity.

[Dr. Frank fan]

The guy whose life would have been in danger was not a CNN reporter--he was an Iraqi working as a camera man.

Well, there were also Saddam's sons-in-law who had fled the country but were lured back on false promises, and then killed. Seems like CNN could've warned them, that is, if their primary concern was to prevent people from being murdered....

He and his family would have been in danger unless CNN offered to have him and his entire extended family relocated.

That's not the only option here. They could've come forward with the story and told the world that Saddam threatened this cameraman and his family - naming names. Then if anything had happened to him/them, the world would've known who to blame. (This is often how we handle folks who are in danger from the Cuban or Chinese regimes: we publicize their names, or try to, and make it clear that we are Aware Of Them, and this puts pressure on those governments not to do anything funny, because doing so will make them look bad and doesn't pay off in the long run.)

Granted, this plan entails risks to the people in quesiton and so would've probably required agreement from the cameraman, morally speaking. Maybe CNN asked if the cameraman was willing to go for it, and he said no. Is that what happened? We don't really know, do we? You can assume that's what happened, if you want to give CNN the benefit of the doubt, for some reason.

[Krodg]

The guy whose life would have been in danger

They did not hold this info to save an Iraqi, or even one of their own reporters... they hid the facts to have access. How many lives might have been saved if a truly 'credible' source had come forward? The ratings they could have had are amazing compared to what they now have and deserve.