Did a Nat Geo Doc Lead to the Death of an Afghan Who Helped the U.S.? Man's Family Sues Disney
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience.
Yahoo is using AI to generate takeaways from this article. This means the info may not always match what's in the article. Reporting mistakes helps us improve the experience. Generate Key Takeaways
At around midnight on a winter night in 2023, Omar, a then 21-year-old member of a group of Afghan minesweepers tasked with protecting Green Berets in the region, heard a knock on his door.
His brother, eight years his junior, asked who it was. 'The Taliban,' answered a man on the other side of the side of the gate, dressed in traditional Afghan garb, according to a transcript reviewed by The Hollywood Reporter from an interpreter who recounted Omar's telling of events.
More from The Hollywood Reporter
Omar was blindfolded and arrested. He didn't return for more than two weeks, at which point he was found bloodied and bruised from beatings and drownings that saw him drift in and out of consciousness.
Taliban forces tracked down Omar from a scene in Retrograde, Matthew Heineman's acclaimed 2022 documentary providing an on-the-ground look at the U.S.' withdrawal from Afghanistan a year earlier. In a close-up, the camera pans to him as another member of the National Mine Reduction Group, or NMRG, voices concerns of being hunted when he returns to civilian life. A clip from that segment of the documentary later spread like wildfire on TikTok in Afghanistan.
They 'showed me Retrograde movie and said you have worked with foreign forces and also worked in the movie,' Omar said, according to the transcript prepared by a former Special Forces Interpreter for the 1208 Foundation, an organization that evacuates Afghans who cleared mines for U.S. forces in the region. 'They found me through Retrograde movie and are still asking of me from villagers and my family members.'
A medical examination showed that Omar's ribs were broken and lungs not properly working, among other internal injuries. He was taken across the border into Pakistan, where he received four surgeries. Upon returning to Afghanistan roughly a month later, he was again detained and beaten — this time to death.
Omar's wife and child have been extracted from Afghanistan into another country where they'll be safer from the threat of Taliban reprisals. And now, the family is suing the producers and distributors of the documentary, including Disney and National Geographic, faulting them for the slaying.
The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on April 24, alleges wrongful death, negligence and unfair business practices. It accuses the documentary's producers and distributors of exploiting Omar's identity for 'commercial gain while knowingly placing him in grave danger' and failing to adhere to industry standards regarding the protection of people appearing in documentaries filmed in war zones. The estate seeks unspecified damages and names National Geographic, which produced the title as part of a joint agreement with Disney, Picturehouse and Our Time Projects, Heineman's production banner.
Retrograde follows the final nine months of America's 20-year war in Afghanistan. National Geographic quietly removed the documentary from its platforms last year after The Washington Post published a story exploring whether the feature put some of its subjects in danger. It no longer appears on Disney+ or Hulu. Last year, the Radio Television Digital News Association rescinded a prestigious journalism award to the documentary, citing background information it received over the 'filmmaking process' following publication of the Post's article.
In a statement at the time, Heineman and Retrograde producer Caitlin McNally said, 'The U.S. government's precipitous withdrawal from Afghanistan and the vengeful actions of the Taliban upon taking power — armed with detailed information identifying Afghans who worked with the U.S. government — led to the deaths of countless partners left behind. That is the tragic story that warrants attention. But any attempt to blame 'Retrograde' because the film showed faces of individuals in war zones — as has long been standard in ethical conflict reporting — would be deeply wrong.'
They've pointed to the U.S. military approving the film for release — a decision that could relate to the potential endangerment of Afghan contractors but not its personnel. 'The bottom line is that both the military public affairs officers and the Green Berets approved the final version of the film for release, which included faces of NMRG,' they told the Post.
Theodore Boutrous Jr., a First Amendment lawyer who represents the duo, declined to comment.
THR, which held this story until Omar's family was safely evacuated from Afghanistan, has reached out to Disney, National Geographic and Our Time Projects for comment.
Before the documentary was released, Heineman and McNally were warned multiple times by U.S. military personnel and former Green Berets that the mine-clearers would be endangered if they were shown in Retrograde, say Thomas Kasza and Dave, who was granted anonymity because he's an active U.S. military member. They run the 1208 Foundation and extracted Omar's family from Afghanistan. Kasza and Dave urged Heineman and the documentary's producers, as well as Disney and National Geographic, to blur the faces of NMRG personnel but were met with resistance.
Retrograde was 'pretty much a Hollywood hit list' for the Taliban, Kasza says.
Ahead of the documentary's premiere in 2022, McNally said in a message to Dave that she was concerned about the safety of an Afghan man who appeared in the production, according to texts reviewed by THR. 'We've been trying to get him out for weeks but haven't been able to,' she wrote, saying that he's 'definitely in danger now.'
Nine others whose faces were shown in the documentary remain in hiding, according to the organization. One fled to Iran after its release but was deported soon after.
At the heart of the lawsuit: Allegations that Retrograde's creators ignored the safety of Afghan minesweepers whose faces were revealed in the production. It also brings a claim for deceptive business practices, accusing producers of failing to obtain Omar's consent to use his likeness and identity without a proper release and misrepresenting the documentary as a 'responsible portrayal of the Afghanistan withdrawal while knowingly endangering the lives of those depicted.'
'What Disney did here compounds the tragedy,' says John Uustal, a partner at Kelley Uustal whose firm filed the lawsuit on behalf of the estate of Omar, referring to the entertainment giant's refusal to insist on blurring the faces and assist with evacuation efforts for the family.
Kasza and Dave contend that Disney could've facilitated the evacuation of minesweepers vulnerable to Taliban revenge killings but chose not to. There's precedent, Kasza says, with the company in 2021 writing endorsement letters for roughly 300 Afghan cast and crew who worked on Homeland, which was produced by a TV arm of Fox.
Adds Dave: 'Heineman's thing was that the faces of despair tell the story. I'm not going to argue against that, but if those faces are being used so you can release a documentary and put some more awards on your shelf, that doesn't mean that it's right.'
Best of The Hollywood Reporter
Sign up for THR's Newsletter. For the latest news, follow us on Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
Thousands of Afghans won't be compensated by UK for data breach
Thousands of Afghans whose personal details were leaked but who were not evacuated to Britain are not expected to receive any compensation. The Ministry of Defence (MoD) will "robustly defend against any legal action or compensation", a spokesperson told the BBC, adding that these were "hypothetical claims". The MoD will also not proactively give small payouts to people whose lives were put in danger after the February 2022 leak, the Times reported. The names and details of more than 19,000 people were leaked, with many Afghans now saying they fear retribution from the Taliban. The spokesperson added that an independent review, known as the Rimmer review, commissioned by the Defence Secretary John Healey found: "It is highly unlikely that merely being on the spreadsheet would be grounds for an individual to be targeted." This week, Healey announced the lifting of a super-injunction that made it illegal to both publicise the leak and refer to the existence of the court order. That came after the completion of the Rimmer review, which concluded: "There is little evidence of intent by the Taliban to conduct a campaign of retribution against former officials." The largest lawsuit is being prepared by Barings Law, a firm that has more than 1,000 Afghan clients, according to The Times. It is unclear how many of those clients are currently in Afghanistan. The leak occurred when an unnamed official emailed the spreadsheet outside of the government team processing Afghan relocation applications and it made its way into the public domain. Knowledge of the leak only emerged in August 2023, when the names of nine people who had applied to move to the UK appeared on Facebook. The Taliban leadership continues to face international isolation due to its human rights abuses, especially those targeting women. Russia is the only country that recognises the current Afghan government, and the British embassy to Kabul has remained close since the Taliban takeover in 2021. What we know so far about Afghan data breach Afghans express fear for relatives' safety after UK data leak An Afghan man who had been turned down for relocation was responsible for sharing the names on Facebook, and was offered an expedited review of his application in return for taking it down, the BBC reported last week. More than 100 British officials, including members of the special forces and MI6, were compromised in the same data breach. Since the withdrawal of international troops from Afghanistan, more than 36,000 Afghans have moved to the UK. Of those, more than 16,000 individuals were deemed to have been at risk from the leak, the MoD confirmed to the BBC. The government has so far spent £400m on the scheme to relocate Afghans. But the total cost of relocating all Afghans is expected to rise to around £5.5-£6bn, according to the government.
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
MAGA Influencers Don't Understand What Journalism Is
The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here. Defending mainstream journalism these days is about as appealing as doing PR for syphilis. Nonetheless, here I am. Back in February, Attorney General Pam Bondi invited a group of MAGA influencers to the White House to receive what was billed as 'Phase 1' of the government's files on Jeffrey Epstein, the wealthy sex offender who died in jail in 2019. The 15 handpicked newshounds included Jack Posobiec, promoter of the Pizzagate conspiracy theory; Chaya Raichik, whose Libs of TikTok social-media account itemizes every single American schoolteacher with blue hair and wacky pronouns; and the comedian Chad Prather, performer of the parody song 'Beat That Ass,' about the secret to good parenting. Also present was DC_Draino, whose name is a promise to unclog the sewers of the nation's capital. The chosen ones duly emerged bearing ring binders and smug expressions—only to discover that most of the information that the government had fed them had already been made public. Several of the influencers have since complained that the Trump administration had given them recycled information. They couldn't seem to understand why White House officials treated them like idiots. I can help with this one. That's because they think you are idiots. [Read: Trump's Epstein answers are getting worse] The harsh but simple truth is that powerful people, including President Donald Trump, do not freely hand out information that will make them look bad. If a politician, PR flak, or government official is telling you something, assume that they're lying to you or spinning or—at best—coincidentally telling you the truth because it will damage their enemies. 'We were told that more was coming,' Posobiec complained, but professional commentators should be embarrassed about waiting for the authorities to bless them with scoops. That's not how things work. You have to go and find things out. Reporters do not content themselves with 'just asking questions'—the internet conspiracist's favored formulation. They gather evidence, check facts, and then decide what they are confident is true. They don't just blast out everything that lands on their desk, in a 'kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out' kind of way. That's because some conspiracy theories turn out to involve actual conspiracies, and the skill is separating the imagined schemes from the real ones. Cover-ups do happen. In Britain, where I live, the public has recently learned for certain that a military source accidentally leaked an email list of hundreds of Afghans who cooperated with Western forces, possibly exposing them to blackmail or reprisals. The leak prompted our government to start spending billions to secretly relocate some of the affected Afghans and their families. All the while, British media outlets—which are subject to far greater legal restrictions on publication than their American counterparts—were barred from reporting not only the contents of the leaked list, but its very existence. Several news organizations expended significant time and money getting that judgment overturned in court. Earlier this month, the government released a memo declaring that the Department of Justice and the FBI had determined that 'no further disclosure would be appropriate or warranted' in the Epstein case. Since then, Trump-friendly influencers have struggled to supply their audience's demands for more Epstein content while preserving their continued access to the White House, which wants them to stop talking about the story altogether. Because these commentators define themselves through skepticism of 'approved narratives' and decry their enemies as 'regime mouthpieces,' their newfound trust in the establishment has been heartwarming to see. Some of the same people who used to cast doubts about the government's handling of the Epstein case are now running that government. 'If you're a journalist and you're not asking questions about this case you should be ashamed of yourself,' J. D. Vance tweeted in December 2021. 'What purpose do you even serve?' I would be intrigued to hear a response to that challenge from Dinesh D'Souza, who said on July 15 that 'even though there are unanswered questions about Epstein, it is in fact time to move on.' Or from Charlie Kirk, who said a day earlier: 'I'm done talking about Epstein for the time being. I'm gonna trust my friends in the administration. I'm gonna trust my friends in the government.' Or from Scott Adams, the Dilbert creator, who wrote: 'Must be some juicy and dangerous stuff in those files. But I don't feel the need to be a backseat driver on this topic. Four leaders I trust said it's time to let it go.' (For what it's worth, some influencers, such as Tucker Carlson, have refused to accept the Trump administration's official line that there's nothing to see here. I'm not alone in thinking this reflects a desire to outflank anyone tainted by, you know, actual government experience when competing for the affections of the MAGA base in 2028.) For all right-wing influencers' claims of an establishment cover-up, most of the publicly known facts about the Epstein case come from major news outlets. In the late 2000s, when few people were paying attention, The New York Times faithfully chronicled Epstein's suspiciously lenient plea deal—in which multiple accusations of sexual assault on teenage girls were reduced to lesser prostitution charges—under classically dull headlines such as 'Questions of Preferential Treatment Are Raised in Florida Sex Case' and 'Amid Lurid Accusations, Fund Manager Is Unruffled.' After Epstein's second arrest, the paper reported on how successfully he had been able to rehabilitate himself from his first brush with the law, prompting awkward questions for Bill Gates, Prince Andrew, and other famous faces. Epstein's second arrest might not have happened at all without the work of Julie Brown of the Miami Herald. She doggedly reported on how Trump's first-term labor secretary, Alexander Acosta, had overseen the plea deal when he was a U.S. attorney in Florida. She found 80 alleged victims—she now thinks there might have been 200—and persuaded four to speak on the record. Around the time that Epstein was wrapping up a light prison sentence in 2009, newsroom cuts at the Herald had forced Brown to take a 15 percent pay reduction. Sometimes she paid her own reporting expenses. [Listen: The razor-thin line between conspiracy theory and actual conspiracy] Over the past two decades, the decline of classified advertising, along with the rise of social media, has left America with far fewer Julie Browns and far more DC_Drainos. This does not feel like progress. The shoe-leather reporters of traditional newspapers and broadcasters have largely given way to a class of influencers who are about as useful as a marzipan hammer in the boring job of establishing facts. In May, Trump's press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, scheduled a series of special influencers-only briefings, and I watched them all—surely reducing my future time in purgatory. None of the questions generated a single interesting news story. In recent days, while MAGA influencers have muttered online about the release of camera footage from outside Epstein's cell on the night of his death, Wired magazine found experts to review the video's metadata, establishing that it had been edited, and a section had been removed. Yesterday, The Wall Street Journal—whose conservative opinion pages make its news reporting harder for the right to dismiss—published details of a 50th-birthday message to Epstein allegedly signed by Trump in 2003. The future president reportedly included a hand-drawn picture of a naked woman and told the financier, 'May every day be another wonderful secret.' (Trump has described this as a 'fake story,' adding: 'I never wrote a picture in my life.' In fact, Trump has donated a number of his drawings to charity auctions.) Legacy news outlets sometimes report things that turn out not to be true: Saddam Hussein's imaginary WMDs, the University of Virginia rape story. But that's because they do reporting. It's easier not to fail when you don't even try. We now have a ridiculous situation where influencers who bang on about the mainstream media are reduced to relying on these outlets for things to talk about. Worse, because no issue can ever be settled as a factual matter, the alternative media is a perpetual-motion machine of speculation. MAGA influencers want the truth, but ignore the means of discovering it. At the heart of the Epstein story is a real conspiracy, as squalid and mundane as real life usually is. The staff members who enabled Epstein; the powerful friends who ignored his crimes; and the prosecutors who downgraded the charges back in the late '00s. If the Epstein scandal teaches us anything, it is that America needs a dedicated and decently funded group of people whose job is not just to ask questions, but to find answers. Let's call them journalists. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Yahoo
4 days ago
- Yahoo
‘Controlling the narrative' always fails
It is a cliche that a cover-up is usually worse than the cock-up it is attempting to conceal. In the case of the Afghan superinjunction, the story of which was finally revealed last week, the cock-up – a data breach that potentially handed to the Taliban names and details of thousands of locals who had worked with British forces, as well as of British spies and members of the special forces – was about as disastrous as it could get. Yet so egregious was the cover-up that the cliche still rings true. In February 2022 – six months after Britain had chaotically pulled out of Afghanistan – a soldier at UK special forces headquarters in London, verifying applications from Afghans who had worked with British forces for resettlement in this country, accidentally and calamitously emailed to various contacts the names and details of nearly 19,000 Afghans seeking refuge. It took 18 months for the authorities to realise there was an issue, until alerted by a refugee support worker who had spotted a Facebook post with details from the database. At the same time, the journalist Lewis Goodall heard about the data breach from a source. When he contacted the Ministry of Defence, Goodall was immediately summoned to a secret court hearing that imposed a superinjunction on him – not only could he not report the breach, he could not even report that he had been injuncted. As other journalists became aware of the story, they too were silenced by the superinjunction. A cloak of invisibility covered both the data breach and the government's response, and remained there until last week. The justification for such unprecedented censorship was the need to prevent the Taliban from obtaining the database while the government attempted to aid those who might have been compromised. Yet the authorities also kept in the dark most of the potential victims of the breach. Ostensibly done for their own security, in reality it made it impossible for them to take protective measures. In any case, as Mr Justice Chamberlain observed in a court hearing, the evidence suggested 'the Taliban already know of the existence of the dataset'. Originally imposed for four months, the superinjunction became continually extended. It was, in Goodall's words, 'no longer about getting people out but keeping the story in'. The news blackout may have begun as a way of protecting potential victims of the data breach, but it soon became a means of protecting the authorities from embarrassment and politicians from scrutiny. Superinjunctions are deeply corrosive of democracy. The ordinary mechanisms of accountability are rendered inoperative: the government is insulated from media surveillance, from scrutiny by MPs and parliamentary committees and from the pressures of public debate. Protected from public view was also the leak itself, and the failure of state machinery to carry out the most basic of functions, such as protecting sensitive data or holding individuals and institutions accountable for such failure. The news blackout became a means of protecting politicians from scrutiny All this occurred at a time when people were already feeling that their voices were unheard, that they were poorly served by the democratic process, and when immigration had become symbolic of a system that no longer worked. It is little wonder, then, that the consequence of the two-year omertà, followed by the sudden efflorescence of information, has been to provide a platform for commentators whose outrage is reserved primarily not for the betrayal of Afghans, or even the suppression of free speech and civil liberties, but, in the words of Telegraph columnist Allison Pearson, the 'existential threat posed by superinjunction imposed to deceive the British people about the mass importation of Afghans to our country'. For Pearson, any relocation scheme 'guaranteed more women would be raped' in Britain. 'I don't care if they're at risk from the Taliban,' she tweeted, 'Our people are at risk from them!' For the academic and Reform UK supporter Matthew Goodwin, it was 'crystal clear … that the reason the state took winter fuel payments from British pensioners, raided British family farms, and piled taxes on British businesses was so it could spend billions secretly importing dangerous Afghans into the country'. Such arguments reveal the degree to which some view immigration as a zero-sum game, leading them deliberately to set one group against another, and to insist that the interests of British people require us to deny safety and dignity to Afghans. Dismissing Afghans as criminals and rapists shows, too, how such bigoted claims have woven themselves into the national conversation. As often in such debates, the loudest voices do not necessarily represent what most people think. According to YouGov, the pollster, 63% believe that Britain has a 'moral obligation' to relocate Afghans who worked with British forces if they face reprisals from the Taliban. Nevertheless, as protests outside an Epping hotel housing migrants, after an asylum seeker was charged with sexually assaulting a young girl once again exposed, anger and frustration can easily spill over into hatred and violence. After Labour's election triumph last year, the new defence secretary, John Healey, wrote a memo to cabinet colleagues on the need to 'maintain control of the narrative' about Afghan relocations, particularly in the wake of that summer's anti-migrant riots. What politicians fail to recognise, though, is that the very desire to control the narrative by curtailing public information not only undermines democracy but leads inevitably to the narrative spinning out of control. Photograph by Lab Mo/London News Pictures
