More on Apiata

I love this. The media break the convention of not publishing photos of the SAS while deployed, and then they try to turn the story into blaming John Key for confirming that Apiata was Apiata. Did they want him to look like a moron and say he can’t confirm that the photo of Apiata was Apiata when it clearly was?

Anyway the Herald reports:

Prime Minister John Key yesterday defended his decision to reveal the identity of SAS soldier Willie Apiata in a photograph taken in Kabul this week and published in the Herald.

He said he had revealed the name because media outlets viewing the photo in the Herald had suspected it was Corporal Apiata and he knew he would be asked.

“I’m not going to stand up and lie to the New Zealand media. It was pretty clear to anyone who knows the man that that’s who it was.”

The Herald editorial defends their decision of course. I do hope they note their own readers in their own online polls are saying that made the wrong call by a 7:1 margin.

A French cameraman offered us photographs of two of them uniformed and armed, apparently on patrol in an urban street. We published one. The picture told us something about what our forces are doing. Their appearance and their surroundings suggested they are not always engaged in the clandestine operations, often behind enemy lines, that can justify a policy of extreme secrecy for special forces.

We did not know for certain that one of the photographed soldiers was Corporal Willie Apiata VC and would not have named him if we had known. Mr Key’s decision to identify him the next day was needless and unwise. Our intention was not to expose Corporal Apiata but to give the public its first sight of our forces in Afghanistan.

Note the weasel words “for certain”. That suggests they thought it was Apiata. And again I like the hypocrisy of the media complaining that the PM told the truth. It is inane to think that Apiata was not going to be associated with his own photo- and of course the media were planning to ask Key if it was Apiata, in some sort of game to see if they could get him to deny the obvious, so they could then no doubt complain about it.

The Herald also runs an op-ed from Commander Shaun Fogerty who is the NZDF Comms Director:

I believe that media have until now respected the need for anonymity, and appreciated operation security risks that images of the SAS present, especially from within an operational theatre.

For example, when media think they have a good photograph of two soldiers in the field, it is entirely possible that captured within that image are weapons configurations, ammunition quantities, communications equipment, and protective clothing that may be revealing to an adversary.

That is, close study of such images by an enemy may present them with something they will exploit in the future – directly affecting the safety of these personnel.

In the case of insurgents in Afghanistan, we know them to be technologically sophisticated and to be adept at using tools such as the internet.

So with pictures revealed in the New Zealand media it is entirely possible that they will be seen and studied by insurgents on the other side of the world. We do not say to New Zealand media “do not publish”. Instead we urge caution, and ask that media weigh carefully these points in their consideration to publish.

Our concern about showing the faces or other identifiable traits of members of the SAS is about creating situations in which their identity, including that they belong to this particular unit, might be used against them.

I just hope the lapse in this case doesn’t become the new standard for the future.