It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: TinfoilTP
I think the issue here is, that unless the press are immune from the sort of treatment allowed for by this policy, that the legality of military action cannot be independently verified.
I would not trust the motivations of members of the MIC, because they have a conflict of interest when it comes to starting wars. They make money from war. Lots of it. So there have to be checks and balances, like a Free Press, in order to ensure as far as possible, that any and all BS that can be identified with regard to motivation on the part of military leaders, is bought to light, whether the military like it or not.
originally posted by: TinfoilTP
This is for war zones when military commanders will be....at war.
Are people freaking out like this is some policy for civilian homeland during times of peace?
Law of War manual made by the Department of Defense.
There is probably a secret service manual somewhere that says shoot to kill in it somewhere, que more freak outs.
Do you think enemy intel gatherers should be allowed to pin a journalism badge on and commence to reconnoitering in a war zone?
In the old days they just shot spies on the spot, blindfold and quickly made firing squad. This is going soft on them.
originally posted by: emsed1
a reply to: infolurker
Why can you never seem to post actual source material when you make these bold statements?
This is a link to a radical website, with information from RT (which has long been banned as a reliable source from ATS) talking 'about' another website that references an AP report about a document with no link.
Posts like this are just as dangerous as posts going the other direction.
When I took journalism courses, this was called sensationalism and yellow journalism.
WASHINGTON (AP) — New Defense Department guidelines allow commanders to punish journalists and treat them as "unprivileged belligerents" if they believe journalists are sympathizing or cooperating with the enemy.
The Law of War manual, updated to apply for the first time to all branches of the military, contains a vaguely worded provision that military commanders could interpret broadly, experts in military law and journalism say. Commanders could ask journalists to leave military bases or detain journalists for any number of perceived offenses.
Army Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, a Pentagon spokesman, said it was not the Defense Department's intent to allow an overzealous commander to block journalists or take action against those who write critical stories.
"The Department of Defense supports and respects the vital work that journalists perform," Sowers said. "Their work in gathering and reporting news is essential to a free society and the rule of law." His statement added that the manual is not policy and not "directive in nature."
But Ken Lee, an ex-Marine and military lawyer who specializes in "law of war" issues and is now in private practice, said it was worrisome that the detention of a journalist could come down to a commander's interpretation of the law.
If a reporter writes an unflattering story, "does this give a commander the impetus to say, now you're an unprivileged belligerent? I would hope not," Lee said.
"I'm troubled by the label 'unprivileged belligerents,' which seems particularly hostile," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's executive editor. "It sounds much too easy to slap that label on a journalist if you don't like their work, a convenient tool for those who want to fight wars without any outside scrutiny."
The history of war is replete with tension between military commanders and the journalists who cover them.
originally posted by: emsed1
This is ridiculous. I'm flagging this post as well.
Nothing in any of these articles provide any link to actual source material.
originally posted by: infolurker
Well, so much for a free press?
. . .
US Military Now Has Authority to “Capture and Punish” Journalists Who they Deem “Belligerent”
There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. . . . The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.
originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: infolurker
What the hell, dude.
What the hell!
originally posted by: EternalSolace
This appears to be geared toward journalists that accompany a military unit while operating in the field. If I'm not mistaken, a journalist that is permitted to accompany a unit is under the command of that unit leader. If this is the case, then I find it reasonable for their to be a clause to shut up any reporter that would compromise the unit or their mission. I don't think it would be much appreciated to have a journalist standing on a rock giving away their position for a few camera shots.