European Stars and Stripes (Newspaper) - January 10, 1990, Darmstadt, Hesse                                Page 10 a a the stars and stripes columns Tom Wicker Bush no grounds to complain on to coverage most of the television news networks have rejected. Respectfully but properly president Bush s request that they inform him before they again use the common split screen technique in broadcasting one of his news conferences. They used that technique on dec. 21, the Day after the Panama invasion began. As Bush answered questions at the White House the first bodies of american casualties were being returned to Dover fab and split screens enabled three of the four major networks to show both events simultaneously. Bush said at his news conference Friday that he had been embarrassed because the split screen juxtaposed a my frivolous comments with somber scenes of Flag draped coffins. But when he asked that he be informed before the split screens were used again three or the four networks a though expressing regret at the coincidence of events on dec. 21 a politely refused. No wonder. What Bush asked them to do in essence was to Check their editorial judgment with the White House before exercising it. But Quot editorial judgment Quot is precisely that even when unwise and under the first amendment is not to be submitted for government approval before or after the event although in certain circumstances it has been questioned in formal court proceedings. Besides with All due respect Bush does not have a Strong Case. Surely the White House knew or should have known or easily could have known of the ceremony and that it was to be televised. Since the hour of Bush s news conference was not set until shortly before it occurred an Alert White House news operation would have postponed it until later in the Day thus avoiding the a a juxtaposition of which Bush complained. Bush himself moreover characterized his news conference remarks As a frivolous  no news organization could have anticipated that he was going to be frivolous on such a serious occasion nor had one anticipated it would it have been under any obligation to shield the president from embarrassment quite the opposite. The real question Here is Why Bush even in the euphoria of striking Back at Manuel Noriega even if he was unaware of the split screens should have been frivolous when americans were in combat being killed and wounded other americans were being held hostage and countless panamanians were suffering death injury terror and property loss at the instigation however justified of George Bush. What in All the circumstances were the networks to do at such a time a presidential news conference clearly was important news Bush s complaint might be William Safire irk is it it Manl More justified had they refused to cover it or shifted for a time away from it in favor of the Dover ceremony. Yet that ceremony Loo was newsworthy particularly to those with loved ones serving in Panama. And had the arrival of the bodies not been covered the networks would have been open to the charge of covering up on the government s behalf the human costs of the invasion. It has to be questioned also whether Bush was the real loser in the split screen episode. The Republican National chairman Lee Atwater has pronounced the invasion a political a Jackpot Quot for Bush and his party no doubt an accurate if tasteless judgment and the unfortunate a a juxtaposition of dec. 21 probably has made Little difference to the president s strengthened position. Who knows however How Many americans a not least because of his complaint a believe the networks deliberately tried to Embarrass the president millions perhaps since the press is already held in Low Public esteem and is widely believed to be a out to get any conservative president. The likelihood is that had the networks humbly apologized for their supposed of tense against a popular president the gesture would have been widely approved. In this nation standing up for first amendment rights particularly a editorial judgment Quot without government guidance rarely wins High ratings in Gallup polls. Suppose finally that on dec. 21 the split screen had shown in addition to Bush triumphant flights of . Aircraft Over Panama or . Soldiers bravely rounding up Noriega a defenders or just the Flag unfurled in the Breeze would Bush or any president have complained of course not and Lee Atwater would have cheered. Presidents in fact this one not excepted Are the most assiduous manipulators of the press. They Are All for editorial judgment when it can be influenced in favor of the White House which they never cease trying to do and at which they All too often succeed. Its Only when editorial judgment works against them As on dec. 21, that presidents a like bad losers a tend to cry foul. C new York Timtai Noriega a israeli Helper deserves prosecution a Noriega is not a partner of mine said Michael Harari a former israeli intelligence officer to a television interviewer in Jerusalem. A i did not supervise or train his forces. I did not organize his personal guard. I am simply a private individual involved in  because Harari served As the former strongman so honorary Consul a his protestations Are widely disbelieved. A leftist member of the Knesset last week said a there is no doubt that Harari was Noriega s right hand Man and we have to Check if Noriega laundered drug Money also with his right  when the United states sent its consensual intervenor a into Panama last month Harari was High on the arrest list. Despite an embassy announcement of his capture he slipped Home to Israel to denounce a disinformation Quot about his past. Much of his Mossad past was surely heroic. He avenged the murder of israeli athletes at the Munich olympics by leading a hit team that killed a dozen Black september terrorists unfortunately including an innocent Arab he infiltrated Idi Amin s Uganda to Advance the Rescue of hostages at Entebbe then he became the Mossad s key Man in Central Ameri Ca harassing Aid to Plo terrorists by Cuba and Nicaragua. In the mid-1980s, he apparently retired from espionage to go into business for himself. What does a former hit Man counter terrorist and Clandestine Border crosser do for a living we ought to be Able to find out. The israeli government dutifully following the pigs and tags of . Diplomacy in Central America a which swung from Noriega As paid Cia agent to Noriega As despised drug runner a disclaimed All responsibility for Mike Harari s private actions in support of the defiant dictator. The first Issue How much responsibility docs a nation have for the acts of its nationals abroad every country has its Wro goes does the United states have to apologize for american racketeers abroad to an extent yes. The obligation of the Home country is to cooperate in the prosecution of its errant nationals within human rights limitations especially when those nationals run Home for cover. Should a . Grand jury want to interrogate Harari or if a warrant is issued the government of Israel is duty bound to help produce or apprehend him. But what if the suspect is a kind of hero a an Ollie North or a Rafi Eytan what if he knows too much about National secrets and if his arrest abroad might Compromise the Security sources of his country of origin now we re in the Gray area in which governments Are so susceptible to Gray mail. We recently set a bad precedent by bowing to the threat of a Cia operative to reveal secrets in defending himself. Suddenly in the Noriega Case that weight of embarrassment seems not controlling. The Thornburgh criterion protecting our National secrets is not As important As protecting our native agents. All nations with extensive intelligence services and anti terrorist teams Are faced with a growing menace of renegades and retirees a men trained to circumvent the local Law who Are coming in from the cold to Cash in on their experience. The answer should be a Tough minded one taken from the organized underworld you can never retire from the service. Whatever you do after you leave must have the written approval of the government in which you served. But Don t even spies have rights fewer than other people. Those who choose the espionage life give up Many of their freedoms regularly permitting the most demeaning searches of their brains and blood. They should be told at the Start that their expertise is a Public asset never for Sale without permission. We have the analogy of the prizefighter. In Law a professional Boxer s fists Are considered weapons. That s one reason that real fighters avoid brawls. In the same Way Many spies hit men and Spe Cial forces specialists have been turned into weapons by their governments. The sales of surplus weapons Are for governments to decide. Both the United states and Israel Are led by men who headed their nation s intelligence Arm. Israel the object of unrelenting terrorist warfare has been forced to train some of its citizens to carry out terrible work. Other democratic nations too have trained agents to do necessary work considered dirty. Those so trained who Are patriots will accept the lifelong responsibility to reflect Only credit on their country those who turn adventurers and soldiers of misfortune deserve not Only prosecution but the contempt of the service they disgrace. C new York to Kim