How and why would you interview a key leader of one of Afghanistan's most feared anti-Western militant groups?

The Haqqani network has been blamed for a series of recent deadly attacks in its home country.

So its leaders' thoughts and motivations, however distasteful, are clearly of importance.

But the people at the head of such networks do not tend readily to put themselves forward for questioning by established media organisations.

The BBC had been pursuing an interview with the Taliban-affiliated Haqqani network for some months.

Then, last Sunday, a BBC Pashto reporter in the Khost province of Afghanistan, was approached by an envoy of Siraj Haqqani - the son of Jalaluddin, the group's founder, who has a key role in the network's operations.

There followed a series of phone calls between Emal Pasarly, of the BBC Afghan service, and senior BBC editors. Here Emal describes what happened next:

---

Some of the decisions were simple enough - clearly the BBC couldn't really allow one of its reporters to travel to an undisclosed location, probably somewhere in North Waziristan.

On safety grounds alone it wasn't on.

Siraj Haqqani, a rising star in the second generation of Taliban leaders, is one of the most wanted persons in that part of the world.

One of his brothers was said to have been killed in a US drone attack, and pressure on the Haqqani network had been mounting, particularly after the attack on the US embassy in Kabul and the killing of the peace envoy Burhanuddin Rabbani.

In both, the Haqqani network was mentioned as the most probable perpetrators.

Siraj Haqqani tends to avoid media spotlight. He has granted very few interviews, and photographic images of him are rare. He avoids communication via telephone and instead addresses his supporters through audio recordings. The latter later proved to be a great help to us.

One option discussed for the interview was sending questions through intermediaries in the hope of getting the answers. In principle, it could work, but there was one problem - verification.

We knew technology would be of help. A list of questions was passed to the Haqqani representatives and a request to record the answers on video.

After five days a memory stick arrived - delivered through a network of various people to BBC colleagues in the Khost province. But when it was plugged into a computer there was no video. Instead, there was a voice - in a broadcast-quality audio recording.

The voice answered the BBC's questions, although the responses appeared to be scripted - at least that's how it sounded.

Was it really Siraj Haqqani?

We set about trying to verify the recording, asking residents of Khost, who had in the past heard Siraj Haqqani, to listen to it. It took three days of painstaking work. Eventually we got the confirmation that the audio recordings were him. We then compared the voice to that on audio tapes we had of him. We were convinced it was a match. We were ready to roll.

---

Liliane Landor is languages controller of BBC Global News.

I am delighted to say that our colleague Urunboy Usmonov, who works for the BBC World Service, has been released from detention on bail in Tajikistan.

As we have consistently said since his arrest, we believe Urunboy is innocent and was simply doing his job - journalism.

We are pleased that Tajik authorities have now considered our appeals.

Today his son picked him up from prison in Khojand so that he can be reunited with his family.

We know that his family and friends are delighted to have Urunboy back and we are appreciative of the support from colleagues at the BBC and around the world.

Liliane Landor is languages controller of BBC Global News.

The BBC has called for the immediate release of its reporter in Tajikistan, Urinboy Usmonov, who works for the BBC World Service. Hamid Ismailov, Head of Central Asian Caucasus Service, has written here about the background to his disappearance, which continues to cause us very great concern.

Liliane Landor is languages controller of BBC Global News.

On the 20 February, on this blog, BBC World News Editor Jon Williams wrote: "Reporting from Libya is tricky at the best of times - clearly, the situation there right now is anything but."

Feras Killani (L) and Goktay Koraltan

Never a truer word spoken. Nevertheless, the BBC deployed on the ground in Tripoli and the "liberated" areas, as well as at the borders with Egypt and Tunisia. Our reporters are working hard for our domestic and global audiences to make sense of a complex and fragmented story that came hard on the heels of Tunisia and Egypt and yet is so radically different.

The BBC's news gathering operation is flawlessly run. Nothing is ever left to chance. All our reporters and correspondents go through a strict and robust safety training, equipped to deal with the most unpredictable of situations. So, with our BBC Arabic team working with their English colleagues in Tripoli and elsewhere under the watchful eye of our Middle East bureau chief Paul Danahar, I was confident everything was taken care of.

But it would be untrue to say that I didn't expect "the call", the editor's nightmare come true. And "the call" did come.

Paul rang London to say our BBC Arabic team in Tripoli had been detained by pro-Gaddafi forces. Feras Killani, Goktay Koraltan, and Chris Cobb-Smith had been arrested at a military checkpoint outside the city of Zawiya.

Now that they've told their story and are safely out of Libya, we know that they were then taken to a massive military compound in Tripoli where they were blindfolded, handcuffed, and beaten. And we know that for 21 hours they were subjected to physical violence and psychological terror at the hands of Colonel Gaddafi's security forces.

They were kicked around, threatened with death, hooded and blindfolded, left in a cage and subjected to mock executions.

Feras, a correspondent of Palestinian descent, was singled out for special treatment.

"[They] took me out to the car park behind the guard room. Then [they] started hitting me without saying anything. First with fist, then boots, then knees. Then [they] found a plastic pipe on the ground and beat me with that. Then one of the soldiers gave them a long stick ..."

It continued later, only this time it was even worse:

"I was on the floor on my side, hands and feet cuffed, lying half on a mattress, and they were beating me... They were saying I'm a spy working for British intelligence."

You could argue this is pretty terrible but after all nothing new; journalists around the world face this kind of violence every day in the course of their work. The Committee to Protect Journalists lists 850 reporters killed since 1992. The BBC World service lost two journalists over a 48-hour period in June 2008, when Samad Rohani of the Afghan Service and Nasteh Dahir of the Somali Service were killed in their respective countries. And of course we all recall the four-month ordeal of Alan Johnston, kidnapped and held by militants in Gaza.

But this is not just a story about journalists and the dangers they face in doing their jobs. This is a story about torture and hidden victims, and what happens when there is no one to tell it and lift the veil.

When Feras, Gotkan and Chris were put in a metal cage, they could hear the screams of people being tortured. Soon those people were brought into the cage, men and women, Libyans and non Libyans, some in a terrible state. Their story has to be told.

As he was being beaten, Feras was told by the Libyans that they didn't like his reports. He was being punished for the content of his journalism - that he, like every single one of our journalists, works hard at ensuring impartiality, that he reports in Arabic, on a BBC channel available in Libya, in a language understood by those meeting out the beatings, only made matters worse for him.

Our journalists are tested every day and Libya is but the latest in a series of conflicts they're covering. Some like Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, are among the toughest stories to report. Yet when tensions run high and violence becomes the norm, we need to be there, with the insightful, in-depth coverage that only being on the ground can yield.

Liliane Landor is languages controller of BBC Global News

A debate recently published by the World Service Africa Have Your Say programme has generated some controversy. Editor of the programme David Stead explains the thinking behind it:

---

By David Stead

"Today Africa Have Your Say debated a bill proposing to make gay activities punishable by death in Uganda. The programme asked:

Should homosexuals face execution? Yes, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind an anti-homosexuality bill being debated on Friday by the Ugandan parliament which would see some homosexual offences punishable by death.
 
The bill proposes: Life imprisonment for those convicted of a homosexual act. The death sentence where the offender has HIV, is a 'serial offender' or the other person is under 18. Imprisonment for seven years for 'attempted homosexuality'.
 
The bill claims to 'protect the...traditional family values of the people of Uganda', but it has prompted widespread international condemnation.
 
Homosexuality is regarded as taboo in much of Africa, where it is often regarded as a threat to cultural, religious and social values.
 
Has Uganda gone too far? Should there be any level of legislation against homosexuality? Should homosexuals be protected by legislation as they are in South Africa? What would be the consequences of this bill to you? How will homosexual 'offences' be monitored? Send us your views.

The editors of the BBC Africa Have Your Say programme thought long and hard about using this question which prompted a lot of internal debate.

We agree that it is a stark and challenging question, but think that it accurately focuses on and illustrates the real issue at stake.

If Uganda's democratically elected MPs vote to proceed with the Anti-Homosexuality Bill this week they will bring onto the statute book legislation that could condemn people to death for some homosexual activities.

We published it alongside clear explanatory text which gave the context of the bill itself (see above). And as we said at the top of our debate page, we accept it is a stark and disturbing question. But this is the reality behind the bill.

This issue has already sparked much debate around the world and understandably led to us receiving many e-mails and texts. We have sought to moderate these rigorously while at the same time trying to reflect the varied and hugely diverse views about homosexuality in Africa."

Update 17 December: Peter Horrocks, director of the World Service has also blogged about the debate.

---

Liliane Landor is (acting) head of Africa/Middle East, World Service

Last July, in the wake of Alan Johnston's release, I wrote on this blog that I felt slightly uncomfortable about the media hyping of World Service news. My point was that here in the UK, the WS usually goes unnoticed until something happens that sharply propels it back to the centre of people's attention.

Well, something HAS happened this week, and happily it wasn't a hostage crisis. But this time, I am sorry that the British press has failed to hype us!

At the Sony awards on Monday my department, WS News and Current affairs, won seven out of the eight awards we were nominated for. We swept the board - three Gold, three Silver and a Bronze. Hardly a mention in the British press, and even the BBC internal publication Ariel did not think we deserved more than a couple of lines.

Gathering so many awards in one big swoop is totally unprecedented for the WS...not because we do not deserve it or do not do brilliant journalism, but simply because of the context of the Sonys. We're competing with domestic BBC and independent sector colleagues for the most prestigious awards in the British radio industry. To overcome that hurdle and win so many awards was a major achievement. And for the British radio establishment to recognise that we in the World Service do gold standard radio, lead the field on creativity and interactivity, and possess some of the best presenters in the country gives us a ringing endorsement.

Having it publicly recognised would have been the icing on the cake. But hey, I don't want to exaggerate the sense of disappointment. The fact is that the BBC World Service focuses on its audience - 40 million worldwide, including 1.35 million in this country. The programmes made in Bush House have a far larger audience than every other BBC radio station combined. The reason is that we make good intelligent radio and even if the British press hasn't noticed that fact, I am delighted that the Sony committees have.

There is something about the media hyping of the World Service in the wake of Alan Johnston's release that makes me slightly uncomfortable.

We in the World Service, and more precisely World Service News, have been the centre of attention lately. Alan made sure of that. He said "we sustained him". And judging by the clarity of his analysis post-release, he's come out fully briefed on world affairs.

We do news well here at the World Service - those who listen vouch for it and those who don't still think we're "a good thing".

We've finessed impartiality down to a fine art. The Independent's Robert Hanks had a fine turn of phrase last Monday: "For most of its history," he wrote, "the WS has been engaged in a kind of propaganda... the softest form of propaganda imaginable. It boosts Britain by refusing to boost Britain." And that's spot on. We do not boost, we do not label, we do not "belong" and we certainly do not take sides. We pursue "neutrality" with a vengeance. So much so that it's the only thing we're not neutral about - I'm never sure whether our audiences agree though.

We broadcast to 37.6 million people in English alone, across a huge array of economic, ethnic and racial divides, political and religious convictions. We don't take anything for granted, not even that our listeners understand us at face value. It helps to be precise with words and meticulous when it comes to analysis. Our listeners are great texters and e-mailers, whether they catch us on a crackling short wave transmitter or digitally, on the net, on FM partner stations or on 648 kHz here in the UK. They love to engage and give their views. They can be picky, at times pedantic. What unites them all is a passion for, and a curiosity about, the world.

On YouTube recently, the editor of World Have Your Say, our global phone-in programme that featured prominently on Alan's listening schedule, spoke of a typical World Service listeners' on-air exchange: an Indian man, sailing from India to China, listening on his computer, debates with a Somali taxi driver in Moscow the merits of our Gaza coverage. Now how's that for a global audience?

Of course I am proud and honoured that our programmes facilitate the "global conversation", and that they've been such a lifeline to Alan, and before him to Brian Keenan, Terry Waite and John McCarthy, and before them to Mikhail Gorbachev. And of course I am pleased to read in the British press that we are "the best known and most respected voice in British broadcasting". I like to think that our 1.3 million listeners in the UK are not just insomniacs who listen when Radio 4 is off air, but people who make a clear choice to listen to us because they like the way we do news.

But my point here is not to revel in our re-energised media profile. I wonder what the World Service means to British consumers of news beyond a symbolic jewel in the crown. And how many of you reading this blog in the UK take advantage of this resource that is yours, this vibrant, modern, 24/7 news service under your very noses of which someone once said that it "wields more influence than the United Nations"? Just curious....

Three stories vying for space tonight... And one or two struggling for air... This morning at our main editorial meeting we thought we could configure our day like this:

Expect the Panorama football bunging story to make it to the lead as soon as the embargo is lifted, and keep an eye out for New York and the UN general assembly. Ahmadinajad is speaking, so is George Bush. And Thabo Mbeki. And Kofi Annan... Very World Service you might say, but in the present climate very relevant, and most topical. Our diplomatic correspondent Jonathan Marcus is at the UN, poised to engage in some fascinating discourse analysis - interpret every word, every pregnant pause, and keep reading between the lines.

But it's not that straightforward.

We've just had news of a military coup in Thailand. "Not a 'proper' coup, surely?" is the first reaction of a programme editor. But our correspondent in Bangkok confirms it. It's a proper coup all right with all the fixtures and trimmings. Troops out on the streets; government offices and TV stations seized, a state of emergency declared, the constitution suspended.

We speak to the Thai deputy PM who’s also at the UN. He tells us he's declared a state of emergency - all the way from New York. But he's not going back before the PM Mr Thaksin has had his turn at the lectern, later tonight.

World Have Your Say, our interactive programme, runs its first half hour exclusively on live testimonies from Bangkok. E-mails and texts are flooding in, and bloggers contribute furiously. There is a sense of urgency about it all, but the people we speak to are extraordinarily calm and seem to take it in their stride.

So there we are, it's 7pm. No casualties in Bangkok; the UN story makes it to the top too. We're waiting for the embargo on Panorama to be lifted, and can even spare some space for the lying Hungarian prime minister who says he won’t quit - (brilliant clip this morning from an angry Hungarian opposition MP who said the PM lies about everything, even about lying!)

The world is a fascinating place and all is well in the World Service news department.

This war has all been about semantics and the failure to read the small print.

As I write, our reporter in Brussels is filing on the EU foreign ministers meeting that's just ended - the gist of her report is that the ministers agreed not to call for an immediate ceasefire in Lebanon. Instead, they're calling for an immediate cessation of hostilities.

The difference between ceasefire and cessation of hostilities? A cynic would say none. Just a way around various political sensitivities.

But it’s not just the Europeans that have a taste for linguistic fineries. The Israelis and Lebanese can also play at that game. Here's two quick examples.

Example 1 - early Monday morning Israel announces it's agreed to a suspension of air activity for 48 hours to investigate the Qana incident - we duly register. It’s the lead of our news bulletins and breakfast programmes.

A few hours later, Dan Damon on World Update interviews a Lebanese minister who insists aerial bombardment was still going on, and claims the Israeli airforce had just attacked a Lebanese military post near Tyre. Clearly the story's moving fast but we need to confirm and get this right. If the minister's claims are correct, we can’t possibly keep leading on "a cessation of aerial hostilities".

The programme's editor decides to turn to Jim Muir in the South of Lebanon who confirms artillery was hitting, but most likely it's naval he says. Jim adds he could hear planes flying but did not think they were dropping bombs. The editor decides to get it from the horse's mouth - the always-accommodating IDF spokesperson. No joy there. It's finally Richard Miron, in Metulla on the Israeli/Lebanese border who sheds some light over the elusive aerial "pause"...

He explains that Israeli jets had been operating in the area and quoted the Israeli army saying, "it reserves the right to strike Hezbollah targets where it believe its forces and civilians are under imminent threat". Hot of the press, he then confirmed the Air Force was indeed assisting ground operation. Ceasefire meant in this instance that the Israeli airforce was not carrying on with its timetabled operation - simply responding.

Riddle solved. We changed our headline.

Example 2 - from the other side of the border. It is well known there is no love lost between Hezbollah and the Lebanese PM Fuad Siniora. Mr Siniora is anti-Syrian, a good friend of Condoleeza Rice, and certainly not a fan of Syed Hassan Nasrallah.

Yet in an emotional speech after the Israeli strike on Qana, the prime minister praised Hezbollah, calling them resistance fighters, protectors of Lebanon and the Lebanese - you could say he "re-named" Hezbollah.

Mere semantics or a more profound shift in internal Lebanese alignments? Time will tell.

Liliane Landor is editor of World Service news and current affairs

In the run-up to the first anniversary of 7/7 I've been a bit troubled.

It all started on Tuesday when I came across the phrase "moderate" Muslims in one of our stories. Why the need to qualify, I found myself thinking? Are Muslims automatically radical unless we stick "moderate" somewhere visible? And what is a "moderate" Muslim exactly? Do we mean Muslims we can identify with, whatever "we" means? Or perhaps secular not-so-Muslim Muslims? And in any case, aren't most Muslims in this country British? So what are we actually saying when we describe them as Muslims? Why don’t we describe Christians or Jews in the same way? And what about the Muslim community? Surely there is more than one?

Very troubled, as you can see...

Which is why when in the wake of Tony Blair's remarks on the defeat of extremism and the need to "mobilise the moderate majority within the Muslim community", every one of my programmes decided they had to look at Islam, extremism, moderation and identity, I made a point of listening to everything.

Newshour had an outspoken liberal Muslim academic taking a representative of the Muslim Association of Britain to task, claiming the organisation had not tackled the extremists in its midst.

World Have Your Say, interactive, edgy and global, decided to ask four Muslims to occupy the first half hour of their programme. No presenter intrusion there. A passionate discussion ensued which had to continue off air as the participants were too engaged to stop when the news summary came on.

But the idea I liked best came from the the World Today. They chose to speak to a Muslim rapper MC Riz, a young rapper whose latest hip hop track "post 9/11 Blues" is making waves. MC Riz has an interesting turn of phrase; he says beards have taken on a different meaning, and that Muslims have been pushed to the middle of the room. That sentence stayed with me. With Friday upon us, I need to make sure that we're not pushing anyone to the middle of the room.

A regular entry that highlights strong BBC journalism.

How do you cover Iraq day in day out? How do you get people interested in one explosion after another, in random, nonsensical attacks, in countless hijackings and executions? As I write I'm listening to the World Service in the background and I hear the ominous "we're just getting news..."

"...of an explosion in a crowded market in the Iraqi town of Hilla, south of the capital, Baghdad. Preliminary reports say at least fifteen people have been killed, and more than thirty others injured. Few details are available. Hilla is a mainly Shi'ite town which has witnessed a number of bombings in the last two years."

How in that context do you communicate to your listeners across the world that Iraq is not all about about deaths, and women screaming their grief at funerals - but can also be about the small random pleasures of the day today? The Iraqis are as excited as the English or the Uruguayans about the one event that's managed to bring the world together for the past 2 weeks, the World Cup.

The difference is that with a supply of 4 or 5 hours of electricity a day, you hope and pray that you can catch a football game - any game, you can’t afford to be picky - when the current comes back on or the diesel generator splutters back into life.

How do I know this? Hugh Sykes, to my mind one of Radio News' most engaging, humane reporters, has been in Baghdad for a few weeks to give one of our correspondents there a short break. Hugh knows Baghdad well; which is why he never takes risks but still manages to go out with a translator, a body guard and a tape recorder attempting to capture the human dimension of the conflict, the everyday...

Yesterday he filed an extraordinary package from a sports café in Baghdad - Café Arabia - where he sat chatting to a group of young people about the usual stuff - who they support, who they want to see win the cup etc etc. And in between shouts of "Brazil!" or "England!", you learn that not so long ago boys and girls used to play football on the streets but that it's far far too dangerous to venture out now.

He talks to a young man who idolises Beckham and carries his picture around; someone else who can recite the names of the Arsenal team past and present - and we realise that people are always anxious, tense, and very rarely venture out their neighbourhoods. Too many unpredictable dangers.

Anyway, fabulous report. You can listen to it by clicking here. A lesson in how you can humanise a conflict without even trying.

Ghana has just made it to the knock-out stages of the World Cup - within minutes Newshour gets the first interview with an elated President Kufuor (listen here).

Lots of "firsts" here - first time ever Ghana makes it to the World Cup, first African country to get past the group stage, and most important to the Ghanaians - first time Ghana beats the US.

Try reading that out loud and you'll understand the reaction of the Ghanaian president who tells us: "the mighty have fallen before us... we are going global!" He tells Newshour presenter Julian Marshall that he was so nervous he had to lock himself in his office to watch the match on his own!

We've headlined the story - of course. But it's not a lead though, not yet. We'll wait for Ghana to beat Brazil. Then it'll be a world lead!

Our new - well relatively new - interactive programme World Have Your Say (WHYS)has sent a team to Soweto. Presenter Roz Atkins (Cornish, surfer and part time DJ) editor Mark Sandell (West Ham, ex 5 live but settling in very well thank you) and producer Fiona Crack (ex Online, great cook) decided to hold the global conversation in Nambitha - a restaurant in Orlando West in Soweto.

The programme was simulcast with YFM in Joburg. YFM is a youth station that plays mainly music, the South African equivalent of Radio 1 you might say. But they broadcast the programme in full and were extremely pleased with the results. So much so that the World Service marketing man in the region tells me YFM are seriously considering taking the programme. They'll stop playing music for an hour every day to play WHYS - here's hoping!

We asked the audience to set the agenda and the discussion revolved around crime rates, corruption, foreigners and xenophobia. It was a great - and revealing - listen. It got away from the usual black/white divide to focus on black South Africans vs other Africans. For the first time publicly, people were talking about ANC corruption and taking the local ANC minister to task.

The guests were certainly engaged and the tone passionate. People rang the programme from all over Africa, the US, GB and from as far as Bangladesh. Lots of texts too. But then some of the guests complained we were painting a negative picture of their country. Roz's line was: it may be uncomfortable but you're setting the agenda - these are the issues you the audience chose to talk about.

Anyway it ended on a high. The editor of the Sowetan newspaper (on first name terms with Mandela, I'm told) said to Mark this was the best conversation he'd heard coming out of Soweto with Sowetans talking to the world. The team is still buzzing.

You can hear the programme here.