Fmr. Military Intelligence Officer Reveals US Listed Palestine Hotel in Baghdad as Target ...

Source: DEMOCRACY NOW!

DEMOCRACY NOW! EXCLUSIVE: Fmr. Military Intelligence Officer Reveals US Listed Palestine Hotel in Baghdad as Target Prior to Killing of Two Journalists in 2003
May 13, 2008

Last month marked the fifth anniversary of the US military shelling of the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad. The attack killed two journalists: Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman for the Spanish television network Telecinco. The Pentagon has called the killings accidental, but in this broadcast exclusive Army Sgt. Adrienne Kinne (Ret.) reveals she saw secret US military documents that listed the hotel as a possible target. Kinne also discloses that she was personally ordered to eavesdrop on Americans working for news organizations and NGOs in Iraq.

...

AMY GOODMAN: There’s been much attention paid to the fifth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq. What went almost unnoticed was another anniversary. It happened a few weeks after the invasion. It was April 8th, 2003, when the US military shelled the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, killing two journalists: Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk and Jose Couso, a cameraman for the Spanish television network Telecinco.

...

The Pentagon has defended the attack on the Palestine Hotel, calling the killings accidental. The soldiers involved claim they were targeting insurgents who had fired rocket-propelled grenades.

But several holes have emerged in the US account. The Palestine Hotel was a well-known place for journalists covering the Iraq war. The US tanks were at too far a distance to be hit by rocket-propelled grenades from the hotel. Witnesses reported hearing almost no gunfire from the area around the hotel in the hours leading up to the US attack. And earlier that day, two other media outlets had also been hit by US strikes: the Abu Dhabi television network, and the satellite network Al Jazeera, killing correspondent Tareq Ayoub.

Read more: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/5/13/fmr_military_intelligence_officer_reveals_us

---

I strongly recommend you listen or watch this interview. Or read the transcript.


A military intelligence translator has come out and given some damning evidence against the Pentagon, indicating that the targeting of the Palestine Hotel was deliberate. What's so interesting about this interview is that it offers a glimpse into how we conducted intelligence operations during the early days of the war. This included eavesdropping on the conversations of US NGOs who were there to help ... THIS IS ILLEGAL.

Adrienne Kinne, the former Army sergeant in this interview, is an incredibly courageous woman. She will probably get into trouble for this interview because she reveals how intelligence-gathering was done, some illegally, by the US military. She talked to Amy Goodman because it was the right thing to do.

:-(

is very very sad. The Bush administration and the cowardly military leaders who went along with these crimes have wounded this country so bad.

It saddens me greatly to see that my worst fears about the evil of our government are realized.

cowardly event.

they were part of the operation in the war

Maybe.

"why do they hate us"...or think the answer is "for our freedoms".

Funny how they lose the sat link just as she's about to describe a conversation between NGO workers. The American says, "They can't listen in on us, because I'm an American, and it's illegal".

Now it's simply consistent.

Support DemocracyNow.org, LinkTV and FreeSpeech TV. They are totally supported by people ...like us.

The US Military does not intentionally target media. Even the Committee to project Journalists concurs.


http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/palestine_hotel/palestine_hotel.html

Of course. It adds nothing new.

Did you read the CPJ article? Cuz I read the OP.

The target list she was referring to was POTENTIAL targets, and some were obviously not final as the hotel was not struck.

Read the article.

Someone on the ground gave the order to fire. I'd like to know why he or she made that call.

The report confirms our bias--"potential" and "maybe" = "100% ironclad proof" when our bias requires it.

Don't talk about needing actual evidence to confirm our bias.

I find the EMAIL target list rather vague. Was it an AIR tasking list, somone's opinion of what potential air targets should be or a targeted Intell collection list. She was a signals intell NCO after all.

Ground forces don't ID targets that way, they have objectives.

A sergeant (tank commander) gave the order to fire to his gunner based on the fact there was a guy pointing a shoulder mounted object at them. This was cleared by his company commander, a captain.



Since no one cares to read it.

clearly, there are more questions than answers. troubling questions

I find the EMAIL target list rather vague. Was it an AIR tasking list, somone's opinion of what potential air targets should be or a targeted Intell collection list. She was a signals intell NCO after all.

i don't know how the military operates, you seem to know more about it than me so I'm assuming you've done this kind of work.

I'm assuming that the translators/eavesdroppers got the potential target list because they were monitoring communication traffic in the area. In that context, knowing which buildings had been hit, or may be hit in the future sounds like useful information to have so it can be correlated with whatever they hear on the ground. These intelligence eavesdroppers were listening to journalists, at the Palestine, speaking by satellite phone , reassuring family and friends that their building was safe, according to Kinne.

Military commanders knew that the Palestine hotel was off-limits. Therefore, whatever the context of that target list, the Palestine hotel should have never been listed.


A sergeant (tank commander) gave the order to fire to his gunner based on the fact there was a guy pointing a shoulder mounted object at them. This was cleared by his company commander, a captain.

Please point me to the source of this information. According to the CPJ article, they were looking for an Iraqi spotter who was directing operations against the US troops. Someone saw a person with binoculars, presumably at the Palestine. That could have very easily been a journalist observing the ground operations. There is no reference to a shoulder-mounted object in the CPJ article.


The sections of the CPJ article that you cite above are somewhat misleading; keep reading further down the article and you find that lower-ranking officers were not briefed about the hotel, and there was great confusion and carelessness in how they returned fire. Later on, CENTCOM claims that they were receiving fire from the vicinity of the building, and maybe the building itself, which the journalists strenously deny (after all they were there and would have noticed it!).

The CPJ article points to incompetence by the commanders and very bad communications breakdown. But they also raise a lot of disturbing questions ... read the last section of the article.


There are two separate issues that may or may not be related.
(1) why was the Palestine hotel on the target list mentioned by Adrienne Kinne? At the time that list was emailed, the Pentagon KNEW journalists were using that building.

(2) why weren't ground troops given instructions on how to identify the Palestine hotel? When they claimed to have seen the spotter with binoculars, didn't they also notice the tv cameras on the rooftop? This journalist, Tomlinson, was frantically trying to identify the building for them, but he was too late. If they were uncertain about the location of the hotel, why didn't they wait a few minutes to ID the building before continuing to return fire? (The Palestine was targeted during a lull in action.) There are lots more questions, see the last section of the CPJ article.

The way these events unfolded, based on what I've read, are very disturbing. Factor in the Al Jazeera office that had been destroyed earlier that day, we have every right to be highly suspicious about why this happened.

Was it a careless mistake due to incompetence?
Or was it allowed to happen under the cover of "careless incompetence"?

The tank shoots right at the camera that was filming it. It was either shoulder or tripod mounted.

The CPJ, while disturbed by the level of miscommunication and misidentification, determined there was no intentional targeting. If you read the transcript of the radio communications it becomes pretty clear. One can certainly attribute this to an elaborate and malicious scheme to suppress or even murder journalists but that would fly in the face of the evidence that points to a tragic accident.

do you know if it's available online or from another source? thanks.

I believe that was debunked as so many many other military reports that were immediately broadcasted to cover up military 'goofs' true or not.

"shots" weren't required. Perception of a threat was all that was needed.

Read accounts on the net.

I don't need to read "the net" I read the interview and the context of the POTENTIAL TARGET LIST was for the initial air campaign.

Read the article.

The Hotel was not struck during the air campaign. I'm betting there were quite a few "potential targets" that were not struck.

What was to prevent the Iraqi army from occupying the Hotel while the media was there and abusing it's protected status? They didn't but it was certainly was potential.

Murder is murder, sir. The war was illegal in the first place and motives can be discussed and debated before the International Military Tribunal on US Government War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity.

Are you prepared to state that every Vietnam and Iraqi veteran should be arrested and prosecuted for war crimes?

Are you prepared to state that no one should be held accountable for what you have just yourself termed illegal wars?

Of course I'm not talking about GIs! Why would you ever ask such a ridiculous question, except to obscure the issue? Someone issued the order to bomb the Palestine Hotel. Someone put it on a list of potential targets.

As for the war crimes as a whole, under international law we start with presidents, cabinets, policy makers, high command, chief liars (i.e., the guys making up the bullshit about Tonkin Gulf and Saddam's WMDs). They're the ones planning and ordering, no?

As for Vietnam GIs, let's start with the ones who did the right thing in 1969-70 and killed their officers, instead of killing more Vietnamese. They should be given medals and promoted to generals, with the task of overseeing the long-overdue conversion of the US military to a defense force for the territory of the United States.

Perhaps you should go back and read it again and point out where you were not talking about the GIs. Then perhaps you should read the CPJ article.

No one "bombed" the Palestinian Hotel. And that sgt has NO IDEA what that "potential target list was". It was an EMAIL list and could have been somone's opinion. It's spelled out quite clearly what happened in that article, which is from the world were adults deal in reality every day.



Interesting. Advocating murder of fellow GIs. In case you didn't realize, Army Officers are soldiers, GI's and not policy makers from 2LT up to General officers. At what rank do you think every Army Officer that served in Vietnam should have been murdered?

Since the President is an elected official perhaps the GI's should have killed the people who voted for him, as LBJ was the Commander in cheif of all those evil officers?

I merely note that the genocidal US invasion of Vietnam came to a standstill in 1969-71 because a great many US soldiers stopped following the illegal orders of their officers to take the field against the citizens of that country.

US soldiers also killed hundreds of officers, rather than continue to endanger their own lives. That is a fact, acknowledged by the Pentagon. It is also a tragedy. War is horrible and stupid.

QUESTIONS FOR YOU:

Do you think it would have been better if the soldiers who fragged their officers had instead followed the illegal orders and killed more Vietnamese instead?

At what minimum age do you think every Vietnamese citizen who resisted the foreign invasion should have been murdered?

Since the Vietnamese resistance fighters all came from mothers, perhaps the GI's should have killed all the Vietnamese women, as they produced all those evil fighters?

1. The US invasion of Vietnam was not genocide. Words mean things.

2. The US war in Vietnam was not ended by a military mutiny.

3. Vietnam was a stupid and horrible war. Those soldiers that killed their officers were murderers.

4. Better? No not better. Just not Murder. Those soldiers could have taken the honorable route and disobeyed orders and been court marshalled. Instead they took the cowardly route.

5. Anyone old enough to carry an AK-47 or no one. We shouldn't have been there in the first place.

6. I think we tried that by bombing North Vietnam, North Korea, Germany and Japan.

1. Yes it was, because words mean things.

2. I chose my words carefully, and didn't say what you imply here.

3. If they were murderers when killing their officers, were they also murderers when killing Vietnamese?

4. I see you answer 3. So indeed. Killing Vietnamese in their own country is bad, but not murder. But killing the officer who is ordering you to kill Vietnamese is murder. Why is his life more worthy?

5. Then, no one. Do you agree that draft dodgers and deserters made the morally superior choice?

6. But apparently it's not genocide, even when the first two countries you name never posed a threat or did anything to provoke the US.

Please explain your definition of genocide and how the US war in Vietnam meets that criteria.



Fair enough



Only if those killed were non-combatants. Mi-Ly was Murder. Murder is a legal term, not a moral one. Again, words mean things. Even though Vietnam the war, in retrospect, was illegal, the soldiers who prosecuted it were not murderers by any agreed legal convention.



No, killing people who are killing other people is not necessarily bad. Killing North Vietnamese soldiers was certainly within the laws of civilization and not morally wrong, as they were waging war against the south. What made the US intervention illegal was the fact that it was prosecuted under circumstances that did not meet the convention for outside intervention, just as in Iraq. Killing Any noncombatants is 'bad' but only 'murder' if intentional or with malicious negligence. No human life is more worthy than any other, but in the prosecution of warfare, some lives are protected and others aren't.



ABSOLUTELY.



ABSOLUTELY not genocide: "The systematic and planned extermination of an entire national, racial, political, or ethnic group."


Knew I'd have to edit the html.

1948 United Nations Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, Article 2, defines genocide as "any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial or religious group, as such: killing members of the group; causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life, calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; forcibly transferring children of the group to another group."

US intervention in Indochina began and thus proceeded from support for the French attempt (with intent) to destroy the independent nation of Vietnam. All subsequent US actions qualify as continuing this attack on a national group.

In addition, the national group of the Vietnamese was designated originally for colonization by the French on the basis of a racist assessment of European superiority. Following directly from the failed French genocidal war, the US intervened more directly, with no valid grounds for intervention in any body of law and with invalid (and immoral) motives that valued the lives of Vietnamese and other Southeast Asians as expendable on behalf of geostrategic (and imperialist) considerations.

The US thereupon created bogus nation under puppet government in south, and to impose its will against resistance employed all means normally associated with genocide: bombings and massacres of civilian populations, summary execution of partisans, rounding up of civilian populations involuntarily into concentration camps with conditions bringing about physical destruction in whole or in part (keeping them away from their fields, lower calorie intake ultimately results). This was accompanied throughout by a widespread racist rhetoric (not official) among troops and on homefront about gooks and slopeheads and how we should just kill them all, and political pressure to use nukes and bomb the dikes killing millions at a blow.

In general, I object strenuously on moral grounds to a definition of genocide under which a white government killing two million brown civilians in an unprovoked aggressive war is considered to have committed genocide only if it announced an explicit and official ideology that defined those civilians as an undesirable racial category; but the same government is off the hook for genocide if those two million people were "merely" "collateral" (but do note: predictable) casualties who happened to be in the way of an imperial quest for control over oil. If we accept this definition, then killing all people in an area indiscriminately (but for their wealth) is considered less genocidal than a targeted killing of some of the people in that area. If you're going to insist on this definition, perhaps you need to come up with a word for a crime worse than genocide.

In practice, the definition you seem to aiming at effectively covers for crimes of Western imperialism in particular, since by its mythology its crimes are never due to racism but national interest, or a noble desire to civilize the world. Perhaps even King Leopold's destruction and murder of 10 million people in the Congo in about 10 years would not qualify as genocide, since the primary motive was not to kill Africans per se, but to plunder the region's wealth.

If anything, killing entire peoples incidentally with the motive of plunder should be considered equally criminal to killing them with the motive of hatred.

The larger point surely is that the Belgian destruction of the Congolese peoples would never have happened to the same extent if Leopold's ideology and religious beliefs had honored black people as human beings equal to white people. And the same is true of the US in Vietnam and Iraq, two nations that (unlike Germany and Japan) never attacked or provoked or declared war on the US, or even posed potential threats to its security. The one-sided killing of millions of people there by invading American troops is inconceivable outside the context of the racist worldview that values American civilization and interests as superior to those of Arabs. Whether or not that's not explicit.

I was watching Amy interviewing Adrienne and this exchange took place...



Here I was, I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and then in the middle of this incredible admission they lose the link...and I couldn't help thinking it was our own government who had caused the interruption.

Does everybody have a right to privacy of communication in a war zone?

Google USSID 18.

USSID 9 covers collection against allies.

The purpose obviously was to terrify the media by making it appear it was dangerous to be in Baghdad with all the insurgency and the incident at the Palestine Hotel was meant to underscore how they media was putting itself "in harm's way" and hopefully keep them at bay.

There had been too many reports of looting and carnage on the part of our military and they obviously wanted to stop it and wanted the media to simply run whatever our military gave them to run. The purpose of the invasion was to destroy Iraq. Not liberate it. And it appears they did just that.

On to Iran and Syria and who knows maybe even Saudi Arabia. Thems that's got the oil no longer makes the rules. Thems that's got the military might makes the rules.

What is truly frightening about this is the history of the Bushes. The patriarch, Samuel Bush, was an oligarchist and literally believed that fascism was an ideal of federalism and was tied to the Rockefeller family and their belief in "eugenics" which included "eugenics by war."

What is happening in Iraq certainly can be described as "eugenics by war."

The only difference between Bush and Hitler is that Bush isn't using ovens.

Prior to 9/11 there was an indication of what was coming with a comment by a Bush administration official at the UNAIDS conference who basically described AIDS as somehow being nature's way of controlling the population. Population control by disease. A nice way of covering up a belief in eugenics. AIDS most likely will have killed around 100 million people before it either mutates into a less deadly form or a drug is found to either prevent it or treat it. Those 100 million will never reproduce. So at some point the world population has been reduced by far more than just 100 million.

Scary man. Scary family. And at this point, a very scary Congress and two very scary presidential candidates who have indicated that we must "honor our commitment" to the Iraqis. Which is really a commitment to the agenda of the Bushes.

History will not be kind to the Bushes. History will also not be kind to the American people.

So once again, we have evidence of the bushista's committing murder to further their agenda. And once again NOTHING will be done about it. And I'd be 99% sure that the corporate media will not say ONE WORD about their crimes, AGAIN.

God do I wish Nancy would take notes and learn from this brave woman.

This gang in the Executive branch is SO FAR out of control, so patently and observably EVIL to the core, I just cannot believe that the Congress (most notably, the Democrats therein) STILL refuse to attempt impeachment. Very depressing stuff.

It always takes times, sometimes years, for the truth to emerge. One can only wonder what truths will eventually come out into the open about george bush and his global and domestic antics over the last 8 years, including but not limited to Iraq, the 911 catastrophe, OBL, WMD, psyops and fear mongering to pull the wool over the eyes of Americans, the impending battle plan against Iran and all the other horrors we can't yet name because they currently remain fully hidden from our view.

http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/palestine_hotel/palestine_hotel.html

What to believe ?

Five years for the obvious to trickle out.

There is a pattern here.

Belgrade 1999: NATO at least warns they're going to hit the Yugoslav TV network, as though a murder forewarned is less of a crime, and then do it. Several workers at the studio are killed.

China proposes a cease fire plan that the US declares unwelcome. Its embassy is struck "accidentally" by US missiles the next day. Three journalists are killed.

Afghanistan 2001: the day US troops enter Kabul, Al Jazeera studios there are hit by a US missile. A journalist is killed. The explosion is experienced by millions live on the BBC as a reporter in the studio next door must dive under his desk to avoid being hit by the falling ceiling.

Baghdad 2003: On the day US troops enter Baghdad, Al Jazeera studios there are again hit by US missile. A tank shells Al-Arabiya TV and then turns its cannon on the Palestine Hotel. Four journalists are killed. Colin Powell says these were all accidents. (Besides this excellent Democracy Now broadcast and the documentary it features, be sure to see the award-winning Control Room for the story.)

The message once again is sent. Don't be unembedded. Don't work for foreign TV stations that are openly critical of US policy, or that actually report what they see. You are not safe.

You think this is all coincidence?

Whether it is firing on weddings, funerals, wounded Iraqis, civilians in their homes or passing civilian autos etc.

They WANT their "muscular" foreign policy.

:puke:

I am NOT in a good mood today, and the
AVERAGE AMERICAN makes me SICK.

I'm talking about Y-O-U, West Virginia.

their say in determining who will be the Democratic presidential candidate by casting a vote?

I'm just depressed over the un-informed nature of
voters.

Hillary voted and enthusiastically supported
the offensive, and rattles swords at Iran.

Everyone has a right to cast a vote.

I have a right to be discouraged that some
people do so because they think Obama
is "one of them Muslimoids".

I voted for Senator Clinton in the Arizona primary, and I don't think Senator Obama is a "Muslimoid" and I don't consider myself uninformed. I voted FOR Hillary, not AGAINST Barack.

kick

Questions over journalists' deaths
By Linda Isam Haddad


An international media advocacy group has criticised the US military for not fully investigating the deaths of three journalists killed when their hotel and Al Jazeera's office came under US fire as Baghdad fell on April 8, 2003.

The Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) says it has continuously called on the US military to fully investigate the incidents that came just before the statue of Saddam Hussein was toppled.

"The Pentagon has never credibly explained the strike on the Baghdad bureau on Al Jazeera, despite our repeated calls to investigate it," Joel Campagna, CPJ's Middle East and North Africa senior programme co-ordinator, said. ..


..snip..

Since the March 20, US-led invasion in 2003, at least 16 journalists and six media support workers have been killed by US forces, the CPJ said. Another 110 have been killed by militias, anti-government fighters and car bombings.

cont'd

http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/F3EC5DD7-13D6-4FF0-B37C-7D97E38B883E.htm


Wikipedia on the Baghdad Hotel attack:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_8,_2003_journalist_deaths_by_U.S._fire


------

PRESS FREEDOM: 25 Journalists Killed in South Asia during 2007

The South Asian Media Commission has reported 2007 as the bloodiest and most difficult year for journalists in South Asia.

According to the report, 21 journalists and four media workers were killed in 2007, as quoted by the Hindu.

Of the 25 deaths, Pakistan topped the list with seven journalists being killed. Sri Lanka came a close second with six deaths, Afghanistan third with a death toll of five journalists, and Nepal fourth with a tally of three. Besides, one media worker was killed in Afghanistan and three media workers lost their lives in India.

..snip..

Meanwhile, Reporters Without Borders/RSF has released its report on press freedom 2007:

86 journalists killed in 2007 – up 244% over five years
Iraq, Somalia and Pakistan the most deadly countries
- At least two journalists arrested each day in 2007
- More than 2,600 websites and blogs shut down in a year ..>

http://www.sajaforum.org/2008/01/press-25-south.html


======

LONDON, March 6 (RIA Novosti) - Russia ranks second in the world in terms of the number of journalists killed on the job over the past decade, a global report said Tuesday.

The report is titled "Killing the Messenger," and is based on the world's most comprehensive survey of deaths among journalists and other news media professionals, conducted between January 1996 and June 2006 by the International News Safety Institute (INSI).

According to the report, 1,000 news media personnel have died while covering the news around the world in the past 10 years, but only a quarter of them died in wars and armed conflicts.

The majority of those killed died while reporting in their own countries.

"In many countries, murder has become the easiest, cheapest and most effective way of silencing troublesome reporting, and the more the killers get away with it the more the spiral of death is forced upwards," Rodney Pinder, Director of INSI, said in the report.

Russia, which saw 88 reporters murdered over the past 10 years, is considered one of the most dangerous places in the world for journalists to work. It is second only to Iraq, where 138 media personnel have been killed over the same period...>

http://www.cdi.org/russia/johnson/2007-54-42.cfm


Congress Pressures Russia on Journalist Deaths (this is rich)

This was a welcome surprise: The House Foreign Affairs Committee passed a resolution before breaking for the holiday that called on Russian President Vladimir Putin to step up the investigations into 10 years of journalist murders there, and encourages the White House to offer outside law enforcement assistance to Russia in the matter. This includes last year's murder of Anna Politkovskaya, the 2004 slaying of Russian Forbes editor Paul Klebnikov, and this March's death of Ivan Safronov, a Russian journalist covering the military who "fell" five stories from a window...cont'd

http://journalism.about.com/b/2007/05/30/congress-pressures-russia-on-journalist-deaths.htm

-----

MEDIA: Journalist Deaths Still Climbing Every Year
By Haider Rizvi

NEW YORK, Dec 18 (IPS) - For journalists across the world, this year has been the deadliest in more than a decade, according to a report released by a major media watchdog Tuesday.

In its year-end analysis of press freedom worldwide, the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) said as many as 64 journalists were killed this year while performing their jobs. These numbers are up from 56 deaths recorded last year.

CPJ researchers who are still investigating another 22 deaths to determine whether they were work-related called this year's death-count as "unusually high".

According to the New York-based media rights group, 1994 was the worst year, when as many as 66 journalists were killed. Most of those who died that year were working in conflict zones such as in Algeria, Bosnia and Rwanda.

The report describes Iraq as the "deadliest country in the world for the press". For the fifth straight year, Iraq remains the most dangerous place for media workers. Its 31 victims account for nearly half of the 2007 toll...cont'd

http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=40524

--------

a person (possibly) disclosing classified information to the media. They have options within the chain of command and outside (chair intelligence committee, etc) to disclose to. However they did not disclose if they followed what they thought was an illegal order.

The rules for clearance are pretty clear at the time it is issued.

If the targeting was deliberate it would be destroyed. Killing 2 people in a targeted structure is a pretty shitty job, ya think?

Now any person speaking from a war zone, on a MILITARY comm link who thinks that it is not monitored for leaking information is dense.

I was not aware the FBI issued clearance to active duty military.

I am aware that a clearance is not revoked, you just no longer need to know. So this person is still bound by the agreement they (may) have had.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/08/18/1061059745612.html

and another...

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0313-04.htm

and another...

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/190315.html

Are US and IDF soldiers really murdering journalists for fun or is it dangerous to point cameras at tank crews who only have a fraction of a second to react to a possible AT rocket being launched at them?