“Just to be clear, there is a difference between “failure to render assistance” or “good samaritian” laws and “accessory after the fact..”

Must remember to preview.

Yes, I remember the Fifth Amendment. I wasn’t refering to remaining silent about my own criminal activity but, rather, to remaining silent about anything of a criminal nature that I may have witnessed. I regard this as lying to the police, hindering prosecution, by omission. Again, not being a lawyer, I don’t necessarily know whereof I speak.

And no, I realize that being a bad citizen is not a crime. It’s just being a bad citizen and I try to avoid that as well.

Just to be clear, there is a difference between “failure to render assistance” or “good samaritian” laws.

In most cases and in most jurisdictions, a citizen is not required to rescue or provide medical aid to another citizen as long as the first citizen had nothing to do with second citizen ending up in dire straits in the first place. So, if you hit someone with a car you must stop and render aid. If you see somebody run over by a car you are not required to help the victim.

However, if you witness the first citizen running over the second and then driving off, you have witnessed a crime and if you do not report it or otherwise fail to provide information then you may be labeled an accessory. This especially true if you know the identity of the perpetrator.

In Eason Jordan’s case, if he actually has enough detail to make accusations then he knows at least the time and place where the supposed crime took place. This is enough information to identify the military unit allegedly involved. That is enough information to launch a successful investigation.

And there is no ‘good citizenship’ law, either. The canonical example is a bystander seeing a baby drowning in a half-inch-deep puddle when that bystander could rescue the baby with a trivial investment of time or inconvenience. He is under no legal obligation to do so and can receive no judicial sanction for walking on by. Moral sanction, on the other hand…

Depending on circumstances, yes. The roots of the concept are very deep. Under common law, every citizen had the responsibility to maintain the public peace. Up until the mid-19th century citizens were expected to actively pursue criminal suspects if someone “raised a hue and cry” every fit male in the vicinity was expected to chase and apprehend the suspect.

In contemporary times, the legal reasoning is that if a person knows a crime has been committed and especially if they know who committed the crime then their withholding of the information allows the criminal to get away with the crime. The individual is effectively an accessory. If they had no knowledge of the crime before it occurred they are an accessory “after the fact” i.e. after the crime.

The concept is usually not applied to bystanders who just witness a crime but it legally it could be.

I also hope it paves the way for investigation in the extent to which CNN co-operated with Saddam Hussein in the run-up to and during the last war. Mr. Jordan’s motivations appear to be not only the lives of his employees.

Obversely, as I understand it, a bystander who does nothing, for example to help a drowning man, is guilty of nothing but being a bad citizen.

If the police question me, and I stay silent or lie, I’ve committed a crime. If I fail to report a crime, can I really be convicted of having committed a crime?

What I’d like to see is a class action libel suit against Jordan and CNN on behalf of all soldiers in the US Army.