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.

 

Arab channel seeks reporter's release, held by US Forces

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 07:34 AM
link   
The Al-Arabiya Arab satellite news network has repeated its call for the release of one of its reporters being held by US forces in Iraq without charge.



Majed Hamid was detained by the US military more than three weeks ago along with several other men at the funeral of a relative.

"Al-Arabiya is distressed by the fact that the US military's authority in Iraq is placing itself in direct conflict with international laws and regulations pertaining to the detaining of journalists for prolonged periods without being officially charged, and denying them legal counsel," said the channel in a statement on Thursday.

"This is against the clearly expressed wishes and demands of various internationally renowned media freedom groups, such as IFJ, CPJ and Reporters Without Borders," the statement added.

"Al-Arabiya holds the relevant authorities responsible for the safety and security of its journalist in Iraq.

"The channel also holds the same authority responsible for the journalists' inability to pursue their professional duty satisfactorily for the absence of an environment conducive to accurate and comprehensive reporting."

Hamid, who is the youngest Iraqi TV journalist in US custody in his country, also worked on a freelance basis for the Reuters news agency.

Source:
Al Jazeera.Net

It's no News that US Forces in Iraq are condctuing also a War on Journalism. Several Independant Journalists have been Captured, Wounded or Killed by them.

Remeber this?



The Pentagon is silent as the U.S. military imprisons local journalists

Much has been said about what is and is not being reported in Iraq, but one thing is clear: Local, front-line journalists are not only risking their lives, they are risking imprisonment for their work.

Ali Omar Abrahem al-Mashhadani, a 36-year-old freelance cameraman and photographer who worked for the Reuters news agency in Ramadi, was taken from his home on August 8 during a general sweep of his neighborhood by U.S. Marines. His family says the Marines were suspicious of photos he stored in his cameras. He was sent to Baghdad’s Abu Ghraib prison, held without charge, and denied access to his family and a lawyer.

www.cpj.org...

I guess Somebody does NOT want the Other side of this Conflict to be Reported and Seen by the World.

[edit on 6/10/05 by Souljah]




posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 11:25 AM
link   
I can think of no closer comparison to a spy than a journalist in a war zone.

A recent post showed how spies are handled by the insurgents:

NEWS: Beheading Of Two Iraqi Spies For US Military Released On Internet.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why should this person be treated differently?



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 11:31 AM
link   
Jsobecky-how can you equate spies with journalists? If journalists are not allowed to freely report on the war without fear of arrest then how do you propose we learn what is going on there? Are we just supposed to believe what we are told by the government and mainstream media? I do not understand your line of thinking. Enlighten me please.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 12:27 PM
link   
Certainly. A journalist can report number, type, destination of troops, what they are armed with, casualties, etc. etc. etc.

What war zone officer would not like that type of information?

I never was a big fan of embeds, anyway.

How do we learn what is going on there? I don't know, but I'm not so sure we have some inherent right to know everything. We don't know what is going on in an an operating room, or in every corporate board meeting, or in that bank customer's checkbook who is ahead of us in line.

I might change my mind if the insurgents also had to put up with imbeds.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 07:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
How do we learn what is going on there? I don't know, but I'm not so sure we have some inherent right to know everything. We don't know what is going on in an an operating room, or in every corporate board meeting, or in that bank customer's checkbook who is ahead of us in line.


What similarity do any of the things you listed have with a war funded by taxpayers money? You don't think that citizens have the right to learn about what they ultimately fund? Or are you of the opinion that the US government is a private corporate entity fed by public money?



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 07:46 PM
link   
So it's the taxpayers dollar is what has you hung up? Ok, I'll add to my list:

NSA Headquarters.



posted on Oct, 6 2005 @ 08:24 PM
link   
Im not hung up on anything. You listed examples that were privately funded, as if they are the same as a war in the names of the citizens who fund it.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I never was a big fan of embeds, anyway.

The Problem here is that the Majority of the Journalists Killed are NOT Embedded with US Armed Forces or are in Contract with Pentagon. They are Independant and thats why they are also the Targets of the US Military. Why? Because they want to actually REPORT what is going on in Iraq and not say what the Army tells them to. I guess Pentagon really does not like that...



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 03:45 PM
link   
Souljah didn't we already cover this topic on another thread? Why are you still dragging your feet on the subject of KIA journalists?

[edit on 7-10-2005 by WestPoint23]



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 04:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by cargo
Im not hung up on anything. You listed examples that were privately funded, as if they are the same as a war in the names of the citizens who fund it.

Poor examples, I'll admit. But the journalists aren't on our payroll either.

The point is, I don't believe that since we fund something we have a right to know everything about it. I might be dead set against funding the war, but have no choice but to pay taxes.

Also, people look at information and statistics when they have no clue what they are looking at.

Finally, we never get an objective look at both sides; bias always creeps in.



posted on Oct, 7 2005 @ 06:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

The Problem here is that the Majority of the Journalists Killed are NOT Embedded with US Armed Forces or are in Contract with Pentagon. They are Independant and thats why they are also the Targets of the US Military. Why? Because they want to actually REPORT what is going on in Iraq and not say what the Army tells them to. I guess Pentagon really does not like that...


So what about the photos that i have in my possession? They are not part part of the US Armed forces, nor could they be classed as such. I guess they could be construed as independent.

Therefore i guess that makes me a target then?



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 06:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bikereddie
So what about the photos that i have in my possession? They are not part part of the US Armed forces, nor could they be classed as such. I guess they could be construed as independent.

Therefore i guess that makes me a target then?

If you mean the Photos taken by Yours Son, then I bet the Army checked your son's camera for Pictures that they do not want the World to see. Or maybe they didn't, and thats why there is the new Law in the US Army saying that NO PHOTOS are to be taken in the Army. Your son is still a Soldier and he still has to Answer to the Army First. The Independant Journalist doesn't. His JOB is to get the story and bring it to us.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 08:37 AM
link   
Something to add here, do you know that a Journalist and any CIA/MI6/KGB/MOSSAD/Secret Agent of a particular agency is very very similar in some many ways?

1) Journalist/Reporter has to uncover as many information as possible.
2) Journalist/Reporter are usually under orders by a handler or an organisation.
3) Journalist/Reporter have to lie/cheat/steal information from others.
4) Journalism requires you to go deep undercover into the front lines of the event

Just change the word "journalist" or "journalism" into CIA Agent or Secret Agent. You'll see the similarity of the two careers. Hence, I don't suppose the U.S Soldiers would just detain some reporter/journalist for nothing right?

Well, I can't say for sure. U.S Forces are known for doing stupid and meaningless stuffs.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Heartagram
Something to add here, do you know that a Journalist and any CIA/MI6/KGB/MOSSAD/Secret Agent of a particular agency is very very similar in some many ways?

Exactly what I said earlier:

I can think of no closer comparison to a spy than a journalist in a war zone.

Good job of giving specific examples.



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 03:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky
I can think of no closer comparison to a spy than a journalist in a war zone.

A recent post showed how spies are handled by the insurgents:

NEWS: Beheading Of Two Iraqi Spies For US Military Released On Internet.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Why should this person be treated differently?


Exactly, and for that...

'You have voted jsobecky for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.'



posted on Oct, 8 2005 @ 05:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah

Originally posted by Bikereddie
So what about the photos that i have in my possession? They are not part part of the US Armed forces, nor could they be classed as such. I guess they could be construed as independent.

Therefore i guess that makes me a target then?

If you mean the Photos taken by Yours Son, then I bet the Army checked your son's camera for Pictures that they do not want the World to see. Or maybe they didn't, and thats why there is the new Law in the US Army saying that NO PHOTOS are to be taken in the Army. Your son is still a Soldier and he still has to Answer to the Army First. The Independant Journalist doesn't. His JOB is to get the story and bring it to us.


First mistake, my son is in the British Army, not the US. And no, they did not check his camera for any incriminating footage.

A Journalist will always pander to the reading public. He/she can glorify, or beautify any kind of event with well chosen words and pictures. That is what they do to earn money. The better the story, the better the pay. What better incentive to glorify things?

What i have in my possession, shows things that cannot be beautified or made to look good for the viewing public. Maybe they are incriminating to some extent, but they are not incriminating to the British Army.



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join