A former New York Times reporter who interviewed an anti-Castro militant now on trial for perjury has been hounded by authorities for years to testify in the case. Journalist Ann Louise Bardach says if she is forced to testify -- either for or against ex-CIA agent Luis Posada Carriles, that is is tantamount to putting journalism on trial, reported the Associated Press. In an essay published earlier this week, before she was scheduled to appear in court in El Paso, TX, on Wednesday, March 16, Bardach explained that she spent five years fighting subpoenas to hand over interview tapes and notes, but that despite "legal wrangling," she now is being "compelled to testify."

Bardach has spent her career reporting about Latin America, focusing on Cuba for the past decade. In 1998, as part of a special investigation team for The New York Times, she interviewed Luis Posada Carriles, an ex-CIA agent of Cuban descent who is a proclaimed enemy of Fidel Castro, and who has been accused of terrorism in Cuba and Venezuela.

In the United States, Posada is accused of lying under oath when he denied planning bomb attacks in Havana and Varadero in 1997. In 2000 he was convicted in Panama in connection with an assassination attempt against Castro.

In his 1998 interview with Bardach, which lasted 13 hours over three days Posada acknowledged having planned the attacks, although he said it was not his intention to kill anyone.

In her testimony in El Paso, TX, that began Wednesday, Bardach said Posada considered the attacks as heroic actions and she showed notes, tapes and transcriptions in which Posada talked about the attacks -- material that previously had been kept out of evidence.

In an interview with the Knight Center, Bardach's lawyer, Thomas Julin, of the New York Times, said this case sets a bad precedent for journalism.

Knight Center: What do you think about subpoenas for journalists? Why is Bardach being forced to testify in this case?

Thomas Julin: We fought this for a long time. We were fighting against having to testify for almost six years. This case did not involve a confidential source. Posada, he was on the record, his name was reported in The New York Times, and so, under those circumstances, and where he’s charged with this crime, and she has evidence that is admissible, the United States does not recognize a privilege in that circumstance. We thought she shouldn’t have to testify anyway because the government has plenty of evidence that relates to what Posada did in Havana in connection with the bombings, in the sense that they didn’t need her. But this judge felt that this was unique evidence and required her to testify and deploy her notes and tapes of her interviews.

KC: But the thing is, she has been asked about other sources for her reporting, other than Posada Carriles, and this situation may pose a risk to the confidentiality of those other sources.

TJ: That’s the risk whenever a reporter gets called into testify: it leads to one thing, and then another thing and then another thing, and there is no end to it. And then the reporter spends all the reporter’s career testifying in courts. That’s why we tried to stop this from happening in the first place. The First Amendment (should) protect reporters against harassment, against being pulled off of the job. They obviously can’t do more reporting while they are spending time testifying in court. That’s not their job. When there is other evidence that is available, reporters should not be required to testify.

KC: Do you believe compelling Bardach to testify is fair?

TJ: I’m disappointed that she’s been required to go through this. It’s a very torturous process for her and goes on and on. It has being going on for six years. And we’d really hoped that the court would have stopped this from the beginning, but they just felt that this a very unusual case, for you had the defendant himself tape-recorded, admitting involvements in bombings in Cuba. That’s unusual. When a reporter has that sort of very significant evidence, then the courts are going to say, we can make an exception to the general rule that the reporters are not required to testify.

KC: Do you think this establishes a bad precedent?

TJ:Yes, I do think this establishes a bad precedent and I think this case is a good example of why you should not compel reporters to testify. It takes them away from their jobs; it’s really not needed. You see that you have Tony Alvarez, who testified about what Posada did. Why do you need to have a reporter? In these kind of major cases it is almost always the reporter who has done some reporting, and reporters tend to make very credible witnesses, so they would become the first source for the prosecutors if this kind of subpoena is enforced. And that’s why we fought it. We tried to do everything possible to resist it, but again, it's sort of a unique case and I hope it proves to be the exception to the rule and not the rule.

KC: What do you think the solution for journalists in this situation should be?

TJ: The rule should be that journalists should not have to testify. I think it should be that simple. There might be extremely unusual circumstances where there is highly unique evidence, so you can compel a reporter to testify, and it’s absolutely critical to the case. It’s gotta be the exception and not the rule. And I think that should have been what happened here. This was not necessary to have Ann Bardach testify. The judge disagreed with us so this is were we are, but I hope that this will not prove that there is going to be more subpoenas of reporters, and my hope is that looking to what actually happened here, the courts would come to agree with us that this is an ordeal for reporters that stops real reporting from hapenning, discouraging sources from talking to reporters.