Free Press Can Only Go So Far

For that matter so does "The Base," an organization created to aid the veterans of the Afghan uprising against the Soviet Union.

But just ask Jonathan Randal and Yosri Fouda about those organizations. That is precisely what authorities the world over are doing. Or at least trying to do. Who knew journalists could be such a hard bunch to corral?

Well, it seems these reporters have run with some dubious crowds.

Who could suspect the Serb Democratic Party -- with whom Randal has had many a rendezvous -- of being one of the greatest genocidal forces of the past 20 years?

And "The Base" -- Fouda's subject of choice -- is plain English for the Arabic moniker "al-Qaida."

Now it's a bit clearer why so many people want to pick the brains of former Washington Post reporter Randal, and al-Jazeera correspondent Fouda.

Simply put, they have probed -- eyes wide shut -- some of the international community's most disgusting men.

Randal spent time in 1993 with Radoslav Brdjanin of the Serb Democratic Party, the party once headed by already indicted war criminal Radovan Karadzic.

Karadzic's charge: killing thousands of Muslims in 1995, using United Nations peacekeeping forces as hostages and attacking Sarajevo.

Brdjanin is charged with the genocide, persecution and deportation of non-Serbs during the Bosnian War.

We all know the charges used to prosecute war criminals are watered-down in comparison to the bled-down reality.

Now the U.N. war crimes tribunal, the precursor to the brand new International Criminal Court, has subpoenaed Randal.

His testimony could prove valuable to that crazy little thing called justice.

But Randal and his high-powered attorneys said, "No," noting the poor legal precedent having a war zone reporter testify would set. It would be a desecration of the journalistic ethic, the First Amendment and reporters' safety.

We'd have reporters being jeopardized and, more importantly, genocidal murderers might be scared to talk to those very same reporters.

Why these men divulge incriminating information in the first place is puzzling, but should international law be fashioned to make it easier to butter up the maniac?

The Washington Post complains that court employees, lawyers and Red Cross workers in those same war zones have been exempt from subpoenas or testimony in the past. Good for them.

Everyone always assumed journalists were exempt as well, but it seems that when you could be vital to the prosecution of evil, the stipulations vanish. As they should.

The very scale of the systematic annihilation of the Bosnian Muslims and Croats warrants nothing less than execution of all the perpetrators. Randal should realize some things are bigger than the hallowed craft of journalism. He should comply.

On the not-so-flip side, Fouda is terrified that his clandestine interview with the recently arrested Ramzi Binalshibh might result in retaliatory actions against him by Binalshibh's collaborators in the al-Qaida network. Binalshibh is a suspected coordinator of the Sept. 11 attacks.

Honestly, what did Fouda expect? He said to The Washington Post, "I wasn't nervous (to interview Binalshibh). It's important that such people believe you trust them. They would not win points with their fans for killing a Muslim and well-known television personality."

Great, another bulletproof journalist.

So is he or isn't he terrified of payback? He has denied the notion that Pakistani or U.S. intelligence agencies tagged him as he set off to interview Binalshibh in June.

What if they did? He'd have actually served a real purpose.

Journalists too often cloak themselves (and their profession) in the gilded robe of intellectualism and liberalism.

These two men are incredible journalists -- effectual and daring -- but miles away from courageous. Getting the "scoop" is their job.

Jonathan Randal: Testify. Yosri Fouda: Suck it up.

Come on guys, you weren't running with the best of crowds. Would your mothers be proud?

Nathan Perez can be reached at nperez@email.unc.edu.