NY Times Article

WASHINGTON, March 30 — The scene is a makeshift courtroom aboard an aircraft carrier, where the third-ranking leader of the Qaeda terrorist network, a Saudi citizen in an orange jumpsuit, is on trial accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks.

A respected Navy admiral defends him. A winsome pair of junior officers handle the prosecution. They joust over the finer points of this unusual tribunal, debating whether the Fifth Amendment protection against forced self-incrimination applies to a foreigner accused of terrorism, whether hearsay evidence is allowed, and whether a confession extracted after 13 days of grilling under hot lights and with truth serum can be admitted into evidence.

This is a fictional television drama exploring what a military tribunal, as proposed by President Bush, might look like. Very few people actually know, because the last such tribunal was held more than half a century ago. But this situation, portrayed on a coming episode of "JAG," the CBS-TV series, is scripted to depict such tribunals just as Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has vowed they will be in real life — "full and fair."

In a striking demonstration of how the Pentagon's image builders take Hollywood just as seriously as they take the news media, if not more so, the show's script writer said he learned details of the intensely debated rules on conducting the controversial tribunals two weeks before Mr. Rumsfeld released them at a news conference on March 21.

Because the real tribunals, which have not yet been scheduled, are to be open to newspaper and magazine reporters but not to television cameras, "JAG" is offering the first and perhaps only visual version of the tribunals that millions of people will see. That version to be stamped on the public consciousness, with the power and immediacy of images and action, will show conscientious "JAG" officers treating terrorist suspects to many of the rights of the American justice system.

The Pentagon was eager to oblige, because, in the wake of Sept. 11, the military sees what television analysts call "militainment" as one of the most effective ways to get its message across, free of the filters of a critical press corps. In addition to "JAG," the Pentagon is cooperating with three other television shows with military themes, including one on VH1, a cable music channel.

"News used to be the first rough draft of history," said Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. "Now it's the first draft of a Hollywood screenplay. News and entertainment have merged already. The question now is whose version gets to the public first."

The "JAG" tribunal episode is to be broadcast on April 30. The show's producers made a copy available.

"JAG" has enjoyed a close relationship with the Pentagon for years, often filming on location on Navy ships and using real military equipment as props. With the terrorist attacks, its popularity has soared, to the 10th most popular prime-time show this year from the 28th last year. As such, it has become a tool of wartime public policy.

People connected with the show say that the Pentagon has no editorial control over any episode, including the one on military tribunals. Often, the show depicts a seamy side of military matters, such as drugs, which the Pentagon would rather not have broadcast. For the tribunal episode, Charles D. Holland, the script writer and a graduate of Harvard Law School, drew out of his former professor, Alan M. Dershowitz, the most cogent arguments that a terrorist's defense might put forward.

David James Elliott, "JAG's" leading man, who in the tribunal episode prosecutes the accused terrorist, described the show's relationship with the Pentagon. "We send our scripts to our liaison and they weigh in on it," he said, referring to Paul Strub, the Pentagon's liaison with the entertainment industry. Mr. Elliott said the show hesitated to anger its Pentagon contacts, "because they certainly lend a great deal of production value that we couldn't buy."

An official at the Pentagon, who did not want his name used, said: "We offer our assistance when we think it is in the best interest of the Department of Defense and our people, and it's up to the production company to accept it. If they go on and say, `Thanks but no thanks, we won't make our character be what you stand for,' we are less inclined to support them."

On Friday night, CBS broadcast the premier of a series, "AFP: American Fighter Pilot," made with Pentagon cooperation. Jesse Negron, the show's director, told reporters that he was able to film "whatever I wanted" as long as it was not classified and that the Air Force reviewed the film for that purpose.

ABC is planning a reality-type show, "Profiles From the Front Line," depicting the stories of ordinary men and women in uniform, again produced with the support and cooperation of the Pentagon.

The Pentagon is also cooperating with VH1, a cable television network, for a documentary called "Military Diaries," in which 60 soldiers were given digital video cameras to record their daily activities.

Donald P. Bellisario, the creator and executive producer of "JAG," said it made sense that the military would cooperate more with entertainment shows than with news divisions. "Let's say you've got someone always looking for the negative, which the media does," he said. "Are you going to want to be cooperating with them or do you want to cooperate with someone who puts forth a positive image? The media puts forth the glass half empty, and we put forth the glass half full."

Mr. Lichter, the media expert, said he was troubled that people's knowledge of something as important as military tribunals could be established by television entertainment. "Since the Greeks, we know that drama produces emotional catharsis, but that isn't the best instrument for producing justice," he said.

Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center, which studies the impact of entertainment on society, at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California, said that many people get their news from entertainment, particularly from the late-night monologues of comedians like Jay Leno or David Letterman.

That puts a special burden on those programs to be accurate, Mr. Kaplan said. But it also raises questions, he said, such as, "What is the appropriate way to wield that power when your principal goal is to attract eyeballs to advertisers?"

For a complex issue like the tribunals, he said, "we don't know enough to be able to form an independent judgment about whether these measures are appropriate or too extreme, and the only way we can make that judgment is with more information" that the Pentagon may withhold.

"JAG" reflects the pro-military sensibility of Mr. Bellisario, 66, a former staff sergeant in the Marines. He said that he believed military tribunals, not an international court, were the best way to mete out justice to terrorists, and that he wanted to show that such tribunals would not be kangaroo courts.

"I want to show people that the tribunals are not what many people feared they would be, which is that they would be nothing more than a necktie party, that they would have no foundation in law, that this was a way of taking these people and killing them," Mr. Bellisario said. "I wanted to show that we still have a system of justice." Personally, though, he said he believed "they should all be taken out and blown up."

The writer of the episode and consulting producer, Mr. Holland, a former Army captain, said he knew that television dramas might be perceived as reality, and so he felt obliged to inject heroism into the story to raise the morale of viewers and troops.

"War is terrible, conflicts are terrible, but somebody has to do it and so it's necessary — maybe not completely honest, but necessary — to imbue those things with glory," he said. "I don't shrink from it."

For him, soldiering is about comrades supporting each other, and writing a heroic script is his way of doing that. "I'm missing the conflict," he said. "This is the only way I can really contribute."

The very idea of a tribunal raises morale because it starts from the premise that a Qaeda terrorist worthy of a tribunal has been captured. Better yet, he is implicated in the Sept. 11 attacks.

In real life, no such luck. Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants have proved elusive. Pentagon officials paint a frustrating picture of interrogations yielding little evidence on which to build a case against anyone in captivity. They say putting together cases will be so painstaking that real tribunals may not be held for months, if ever.


	NY Times Article March 31, 2002 (Link) (Special Thanks to Northstar for posting this at Maeve's) TV Drama, Pentagon-Style: A Fictional Terror Tribunal By KATHARINE Q. SEELYE WASHINGTON, March 30 — The scene is a makeshift courtroom aboard an aircraft carrier, where the third-ranking leader of the Qaeda terrorist network, a Saudi citizen in an orange jumpsuit, is on trial accused of plotting the Sept. 11 attacks. A respected Navy admiral defends him. A winsome pair of junior officers handle the prosecution. They joust over the finer points of this unusual tribunal, debating whether the Fifth Amendment protection against forced self-incrimination applies to a foreigner accused of terrorism, whether hearsay evidence is allowed, and whether a confession extracted after 13 days of grilling under hot lights and with truth serum can be admitted into evidence. This is a fictional television drama exploring what a military tribunal, as proposed by President Bush, might look like. Very few people actually know, because the last such tribunal was held more than half a century ago. But this situation, portrayed on a coming episode of "JAG," the CBS-TV series, is scripted to depict such tribunals just as Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld has vowed they will be in real life — "full and fair." In a striking demonstration of how the Pentagon's image builders take Hollywood just as seriously as they take the news media, if not more so, the show's script writer said he learned details of the intensely debated rules on conducting the controversial tribunals two weeks before Mr. Rumsfeld released them at a news conference on March 21. Because the real tribunals, which have not yet been scheduled, are to be open to newspaper and magazine reporters but not to television cameras, "JAG" is offering the first and perhaps only visual version of the tribunals that millions of people will see. That version to be stamped on the public consciousness, with the power and immediacy of images and action, will show conscientious "JAG" officers treating terrorist suspects to many of the rights of the American justice system. The Pentagon was eager to oblige, because, in the wake of Sept. 11, the military sees what television analysts call "militainment" as one of the most effective ways to get its message across, free of the filters of a critical press corps. In addition to "JAG," the Pentagon is cooperating with three other television shows with military themes, including one on VH1, a cable music channel. "News used to be the first rough draft of history," said Robert Lichter, president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a nonpartisan research group in Washington. "Now it's the first draft of a Hollywood screenplay. News and entertainment have merged already. The question now is whose version gets to the public first." The "JAG" tribunal episode is to be broadcast on April 30. The show's producers made a copy available. "JAG" has enjoyed a close relationship with the Pentagon for years, often filming on location on Navy ships and using real military equipment as props. With the terrorist attacks, its popularity has soared, to the 10th most popular prime-time show this year from the 28th last year. As such, it has become a tool of wartime public policy. People connected with the show say that the Pentagon has no editorial control over any episode, including the one on military tribunals. Often, the show depicts a seamy side of military matters, such as drugs, which the Pentagon would rather not have broadcast. For the tribunal episode, Charles D. Holland, the script writer and a graduate of Harvard Law School, drew out of his former professor, Alan M. Dershowitz, the most cogent arguments that a terrorist's defense might put forward. David James Elliott, "JAG's" leading man, who in the tribunal episode prosecutes the accused terrorist, described the show's relationship with the Pentagon. "We send our scripts to our liaison and they weigh in on it," he said, referring to Paul Strub, the Pentagon's liaison with the entertainment industry. Mr. Elliott said the show hesitated to anger its Pentagon contacts, "because they certainly lend a great deal of production value that we couldn't buy." An official at the Pentagon, who did not want his name used, said: "We offer our assistance when we think it is in the best interest of the Department of Defense and our people, and it's up to the production company to accept it. If they go on and say, `Thanks but no thanks, we won't make our character be what you stand for,' we are less inclined to support them." The "JAG" show comes as the Pentagon is working closely with network entertainment divisions. On Friday night, CBS broadcast the premier of a series, "AFP: American Fighter Pilot," made with Pentagon cooperation. Jesse Negron, the show's director, told reporters that he was able to film "whatever I wanted" as long as it was not classified and that the Air Force reviewed the film for that purpose. ABC is planning a reality-type show, "Profiles From the Front Line," depicting the stories of ordinary men and women in uniform, again produced with the support and cooperation of the Pentagon. The Pentagon is also cooperating with VH1, a cable television network, for a documentary called "Military Diaries," in which 60 soldiers were given digital video cameras to record their daily activities. Donald P. Bellisario, the creator and executive producer of "JAG," said it made sense that the military would cooperate more with entertainment shows than with news divisions. "Let's say you've got someone always looking for the negative, which the media does," he said. "Are you going to want to be cooperating with them or do you want to cooperate with someone who puts forth a positive image? The media puts forth the glass half empty, and we put forth the glass half full." Mr. Lichter, the media expert, said he was troubled that people's knowledge of something as important as military tribunals could be established by television entertainment. "Since the Greeks, we know that drama produces emotional catharsis, but that isn't the best instrument for producing justice," he said. Martin Kaplan, director of the Norman Lear Center, which studies the impact of entertainment on society, at the Annenberg School for Communication at the University of Southern California, said that many people get their news from entertainment, particularly from the late-night monologues of comedians like Jay Leno or David Letterman. That puts a special burden on those programs to be accurate, Mr. Kaplan said. But it also raises questions, he said, such as, "What is the appropriate way to wield that power when your principal goal is to attract eyeballs to advertisers?" For a complex issue like the tribunals, he said, "we don't know enough to be able to form an independent judgment about whether these measures are appropriate or too extreme, and the only way we can make that judgment is with more information" that the Pentagon may withhold. "JAG" reflects the pro-military sensibility of Mr. Bellisario, 66, a former staff sergeant in the Marines. He said that he believed military tribunals, not an international court, were the best way to mete out justice to terrorists, and that he wanted to show that such tribunals would not be kangaroo courts. "I want to show people that the tribunals are not what many people feared they would be, which is that they would be nothing more than a necktie party, that they would have no foundation in law, that this was a way of taking these people and killing them," Mr. Bellisario said. "I wanted to show that we still have a system of justice." Personally, though, he said he believed "they should all be taken out and blown up." The writer of the episode and consulting producer, Mr. Holland, a former Army captain, said he knew that television dramas might be perceived as reality, and so he felt obliged to inject heroism into the story to raise the morale of viewers and troops. "War is terrible, conflicts are terrible, but somebody has to do it and so it's necessary — maybe not completely honest, but necessary — to imbue those things with glory," he said. "I don't shrink from it." For him, soldiering is about comrades supporting each other, and writing a heroic script is his way of doing that. "I'm missing the conflict," he said. "This is the only way I can really contribute." The very idea of a tribunal raises morale because it starts from the premise that a Qaeda terrorist worthy of a tribunal has been captured. Better yet, he is implicated in the Sept. 11 attacks. In real life, no such luck. Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants have proved elusive. Pentagon officials paint a frustrating picture of interrogations yielding little evidence on which to build a case against anyone in captivity. They say putting together cases will be so painstaking that real tribunals may not be held for months, if ever. Back to JAGNews