It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Press Banned from Jade Helm Exercises

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 05:58 AM
link   
Jad e Helm- No Press

After all of the questions and conspiracy theories, one would think the organizers of Jade Helm would allow imbeded reporters. Nope.

"The Washington Post has several times requested access to observe the exercise, making the case to the military that first-hand media coverage would help explain the mission. Lastoria said it is not possible to allow a journalist to travel with Special Operations forces in the field, citing the isolated nature of the mission and the need to protect the identity of the forces involved." Special Forces and Special Operations overseas have often had imbedded journalists. This has been deemed 'too sensitive' though.
edit on 9-7-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
Special Forces and Special Operations overseas have often had imbedded journalists. This has been deemed 'too sensitive' though.


I don't know about "often". Most journo embeds are former SF, and know what photos to take and when. With others they've got say on what is kept and what erased. In the US, it's legally more difficult to restrict that than if you're embed on a battlefield overseas.

Recognizable facial photos are like painting a target on the guys. For some units, it's more a problem than others, too. One reason why SF have goofy name tapes - either none at all or first names instead of last.


edit on 9-7-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: reldra
Special Forces and Special Operations overseas have often had imbedded journalists. This has been deemed 'too sensitive' though.


I don't know about "often". Most journo embeds are former SF, and know what photos to take and when. With others they've got say on what is kept and what erased. In the US, it's legally more difficult to restrict that than if you're embed on a battlefield overseas.

Recognizable facial photos are like painting a target on the guys. For some units, it's more a problem than others, too. One reason why SF have goofy name tapes - either none at all or first names instead of last.


I would understand that in an actual war on foreign soil as bounties are often put on snipers, etc. But this is taking place in the US. It is a 'training exercise' they say. Of the about 1200 soldiers listed, only 200 are SF.
edit on 9-7-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
I would understand that in an actual war on foreign soil as bounties are often put on snipers, etc. But this is taking place in the US. It is a 'training exercise' they say. Of the about 1200 soldiers listed, only 200 are SF.


It is a training exercise. But the pictures are forever, especially on the net. They'll exist after the exercise, with a tag "SF in training". And that makes it a lot easier five years from now to spot that you're SF, and not whatever you're passing yourself off as at the time.

eta: Think about it this way. Let's say some jackass takes your photo and somehow associates a name with it. Five years from now, you get caught doing...something. Now these guys have your photo, and a name, maybe it's a fairly unusual name. And so they can find your family and give you some payback of a personal nature. It's not that unusual that these guys are out there pissing governmental organizations off in a truly spectacular way, the sorts of folk with a lot of money and some exciting people to send your way, or Pop's, or Mom's, or your kids'.

edit on 9-7-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:46 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra


citing the isolated nature of the mission and the need to protect the identity of the forces involved

Since they are practicing urban combat against American citizens, any footage would "reveal too much".
Imagine Boston Bomber manhunt on Steroids…



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: reldra


citing the isolated nature of the mission and the need to protect the identity of the forces involved

Since they are practicing urban combat against American citizens, any footage would "reveal too much".
Imagine Boston Bomber manhunt on Steroids…

Bingo!



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: reldra

Since they are practicing urban combat against American citizens, any footage would "reveal too much".


Not true. They're practicing against each other and LEO's, primarily, using the infrastructure as a big LARP environment, if you want to look at it that way.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: reldra
I would understand that in an actual war on foreign soil as bounties are often put on snipers, etc. But this is taking place in the US. It is a 'training exercise' they say. Of the about 1200 soldiers listed, only 200 are SF.


It is a training exercise. But the pictures are forever, especially on the net. They'll exist after the exercise, with a tag "SF in training". And that makes it a lot easier five years from now to spot that you're SF, and not whatever you're passing yourself off as at the time.

eta: Think about it this way. Let's say some jackass takes your photo and somehow associates a name with it. Five years from now, you get caught doing...something. Now these guys have your photo, and a name, maybe it's a fairly unusual name. And so they can find your family and give you some payback of a personal nature. It's not that unusual that these guys are out there pissing governmental organizations off in a truly spectacular way, the sorts of folk with a lot of money and some exciting people to send your way, or Pop's, or Mom's, or your kids'.
I'm sure, since the newspaper asked several times, and it's not the only one- they would have a journalist who is familiar with these guidelines, that has been imbedded on foreign soil with our military in dangerous conditions. They could have a contract to that end. I'm not buying the explanation of revealing a soldier's identity.

The military even hired civilians by posting want ads. The requirements included walking for 20 miles in dark, driving for hours on end. The ads pointed out physical requirements, but I assume some non-disclosure agreement was part of it. A journalist would want to come back with something, but I bet would sign some kind of agreement so as to have something to come back with at all and print an article.
edit on 9-7-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:53 AM
link   
All specialized training Ops are deemed classified. They have already released more for Jade Helm than they have any in the past. But , most have led to a real military operation afterwards.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Gothmog because: add info



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:54 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Good, the press shouldn't be involved with watching military maneuvers. Especially ones involving the special forces. You know how annoying it is to conduct training while having to worry about reporting to some idiot reporter (especially one who may or may not twist your words into some stupid conspiracy)?

The military doesn't need to satisfy dumb conspiracy theorists' concerns. The military has a job to do, and the press would just impede them.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra
I'm sure, since the newspaper asked several times, and it's not the only one- they would have a journalist who is familiar with these guidelines, that has been imbedded on foreign soil with our military in dangerous conditions.


Why are you sure? What experience with either journalists or military do you have as a basis for judgement?

The "on foreign soil" is another aspect of this, as well. You can't legally impose the restrictions on journos here that you can in Afghanistan.



They could have a contract to that end. I'm not buying the explanation of revealing a soldier's identity.


Why bother with it in the first place? It's not like they're advertising a movie or something. They neither need nor want the publicity.

Don't buy it all you'd like, but it is the reason.

eta: If you've ever been on an open base that has SF there, like, say, Ft Benning, you will have noticed the SF compound has security fencing that you can't see through. At times, if they deploy during "normal business hours" the rank and file soldiers will be ordered inside while they drive through. It's why they usually go at 0200 or so. Even from other soldiers on base, it's SOP to conceal numbers and equipment.

There is absolutely no upside to your mug on a photo on the internet with "SOF operator" on it.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:56 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog
All specialized training Ops are deemed classified. They have already released more for Jade Helm than they have any in the past. But , most have led to a real military operation afterwards.


And....they have had imbedded journalists in prior special operations. They have hired civilian support personnel for this one. So, your point is?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: reldra

Since they are practicing urban combat against American citizens, any footage would "reveal too much".


Not true. They're practicing against each other and LEO's, primarily, using the infrastructure as a big LARP environment, if you want to look at it that way.


Footage? Oh, we can't look at it "that way".



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: reldra
I'm sure, since the newspaper asked several times, and it's not the only one- they would have a journalist who is familiar with these guidelines, that has been imbedded on foreign soil with our military in dangerous conditions.


Why are you sure? What experience with either journalists or military do you have as a basis for judgement?

The "on foreign soil" is another aspect of this, as well. You can't legally impose the restrictions on journos here that you can in Afghanistan.



They could have a contract to that end. I'm not buying the explanation of revealing a soldier's identity.


Why bother with it in the first place? It's not like they're advertising a movie or something. They neither need nor want the publicity.

Don't buy it all you'd like, but it is the reason.


I am sure The Washington Post could produce a journalist with this type of experience. They can make any type of contract they want, they do all the time with celebrity interviews, being on closed movie sets, etc. The journalist could take it or leave it.

I understand they are not making a movie. All they have done is caused more distrust of the entire thing.

how do you know THAT IS the reason? There is enough distrust about this that the Texas State Guard is deployed. If the military wants this to be lower key, banning the press is not a step that would lead them there. It only causes more attention.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:03 AM
link   

originally posted by: intrptr

Footage? Oh, we can't look at it "that way".


Who says it's your business to look at it at all? Why do you feel that you have some unalienable right to news coverage of a military exercise?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:06 AM
link   
a reply to: reldra

Who cares about distrust? The military certainly doesn't. Y'all can vent and fume all day about how its a clandestine operation, but when the exercise is over and nothing has happened, you'll just have looked silly venting and fuming all day about it.
edit on 9-7-2015 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Gothmog
All specialized training Ops are deemed classified. They have already released more for Jade Helm than they have any in the past. But , most have led to a real military operation afterwards.


And....they have had imbedded journalists in prior special operations. They have hired civilian support personnel for this one. So, your point is?


No press or coverage at Operation Sagebrush . No press or coverage at the training in Cali before the war in Iraq (forgot what it was called) . No , the major ones are deemed "classified" . And like I said , more info has been released for Jade Helm than any major training op that I know of.


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: reldra

Good, the press shouldn't be involved with watching military maneuvers. Especially ones involving the special forces. You know how annoying it is to conduct training while having to worry about reporting to some idiot reporter (especially one who may or may not twist your words into some stupid conspiracy)?

The military doesn't need to satisfy dumb conspiracy theorists' concerns. The military has a job to do, and the press would just impede them.

The newspaper wanted one journalist to observe. I think the people have a right to have some idea of what the military is doing on US soil, especially outside of military bases. There are conspiracy theories regarding this already all over the place. The ship sailed on that months ago. 'Idiot reporter' 'stupid conspiracy'?



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:09 AM
link   

originally posted by: reldra

I am sure The Washington Post could produce a journalist with this type of experience.


Even if they could, why bother, when it's so much easier just to not worry with it at all?



I understand they are not making a movie. All they have done is caused more distrust of the entire thing.


As nothing would make you trust them, why should they bother? Even if it DID make you trust them, why should they bother?



how do you know THAT IS the reason? There is enough distrust about this that the Texas State Guard is deployed. If the military wants this to be lower key, banning the press is not a step that would lead them there. It only causes more attention.


So, a bunch of journos tagging along getting in the way would cause LESS attention? The TSG are IN ON IT, not protecting you from it. Geez, guys, get a grip.



posted on Jul, 9 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: reldra

originally posted by: Gothmog
All specialized training Ops are deemed classified. They have already released more for Jade Helm than they have any in the past. But , most have led to a real military operation afterwards.


And....they have had imbedded journalists in prior special operations. They have hired civilian support personnel for this one. So, your point is?


No press or coverage at Operation Sagebrush . No press or coverage at the training in Cali before the war in Iraq (forgot what it was called) . No , the major ones are deemed "classified" . And like I said , more info has been released for Jade Helm than any major training op that I know of.


You did not read the article I provided in the OP. "The military has granted access to Special Operations in the past, however. In one recent example, a journalist observed the operation Robin Sage in North Carolina, writing a profile for Our State, a magazine."

The training before the Iraq war was at FT Irwin National Training Center, which is owned by the US Army and is 1,000 sq miles. It is a large military base, not civilian land,
edit on 9-7-2015 by reldra because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join