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.

 

Prince's cover in Afghanistan blown by Drudge Report

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   

Prince's cover in Afghanistan blown by Drudge Report


www.independent.co.uk

An American website, the Drudge Report, broke a news blackout yesterday by revealing that Prince Harry has been serving in Afghanistan for more than two months.

The article brought to an end an agreement with the media that the Prince's deployment to Helmand be kept quiet in the interests of his safety and that of the soldiers with him.

The decision to send Prince Harry, 23, to Afghanistan under a cloak of secrecy came after the furore that followed the revelation of his proposed deployment..
(visit the link for the full news article)



Related AboveTopSecret.com Discussion Threads:
www.belowtopsecret.com...




posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 04:18 AM
link   
I think it's reasonable that the prince should have had no undue specific attention brought upon him, because of exactly why they said: he'd likely be a top priority target. The "by terrorists" is the part I have problems with. Shame on Drudge, if this is true. There are times a media blackout is warranted, and this is one of them imo.

www.independent.co.uk
(visit the link for the full news article)

[edit on 1-3-2008 by TrueAmerican]



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 04:46 AM
link   
Although I am a believer in 'freedom of the press', I also believe that there are times when the press should take some responsibility and just not print certain information. And with Prince Harry's and his unit being stationed in Afghanistan is one of them. Not that he wouldn't be a target anyway, but why make him, and those that serve with him, more of a target by announcing where he is stationed? Doen't the press understand that, just like with freedom of speech, sometimes a little self restraint goes a long way towards helping to keep lives from being unneccesarily lost. And free speech itself isn't totally free. That is why there are laws against libel, slander, and defamation of character. Sometimes the press is pretty irresponsible with what it prints.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 05:12 AM
link   
www.belowtopsecret.com...


allready posted



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 05:25 AM
link   
I don't blame the press, it's their duty to report newsworthy items. I blame whoever leaked this to the press, whoever did it deserves to be dropped on the frontline in one of those humongous paper mache Bush masks. Now conspiracy thinking, was it perhaps a sly leak by a royal insider or such to purposely blow the cover and bring him back early, in tact? Hrmm...


Anyway, I bet we get a crapload of propaganda vids of him runnin round the desert with a machine gun... prolly 'leaked' on youtube first. And I guess this is meant to make everyone think he's really great cos he's ready to go kill some arabs in their own countries under false pretenses just like every other ignorant joe shmoe.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 05:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by Harlequin
www.belowtopsecret.com...


allready posted


Yup, you're right. It was posted. As a related thread in my OP, if you'd have just looked. But this story has a whole different angle, involving a media blackout and the fact that Drudge broke the blackout. The other thread is related, but it a different story, to an extent. I dunno, I will defer to the mods on this one.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 05:41 AM
link   
the same link was allready posted yesterday , as was about 10 more - but was shut down and redirected

as for the leak - it was an australian journo that broke it in janurary - but got quietly ignored , but drudge broke it to the msm - and tbh they need to be kicked about in a back alley for this.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Shar_Chi
 


Actually, the British media have known for weeks. They were told before he went and were asked to uphold a total media blackout on the story through a DA-Notices (official requests from the British government to the media that news on a certain story isn't printed/broadcast - this system is voluntary, though, and the British media seem to have heeded it). It worked - the American website in question broke the news, not a British outlet.

I think the reporters at the Druge Report were entirely irresponsible, putting website hits before the safety of British troops on the front lines of Afghanistan (not just Prince Harry, but those troops serving alongside him too). Shame on them. I've never said this before in my life, but the UK media was very responsible and did the right thing in this case (as did many other media outlets who knew in the US and other countries). Sadly, all it took was one website to blow the entire thing and unnecessarily put lives at greater risk in what is already an extremely dangerous job. A case of putting profit before people, I think.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Harlequin
 


After further consideration with your input, I probably have to agree. This thread should be locked, but again, it's always the mods choice.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Shar_Chi
I don't blame the press, it's their duty to report newsworthy items. I blame whoever leaked this to the press, whoever did it deserves to be dropped on the frontline in one of those humongous paper mache Bush masks. Now conspiracy thinking, was it perhaps a sly leak by a royal insider or such to purposely blow the cover and bring him back early, in tact? Hrmm...


Anyway, I bet we get a crapload of propaganda vids of him runnin round the desert with a machine gun... prolly 'leaked' on youtube first. And I guess this is meant to make everyone think he's really great cos he's ready to go kill some arabs in their own countries under false pretenses just like every other ignorant joe shmoe.


Oh come on now, you can't be selective when it comes to leaks.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 05:59 PM
link   
I am not generally in favor of any sort of censorship except when it comes to operational security. I do not think the media, nor the enemy, have the right to know detailed information about operations. This includes personal identity factors. Not just for royals, but even for regulars. Troops do not even share with their families the specifics about their location and movements while they are deployed. And no one has more of a "right" to know than the families.

Here is an example. The enemy hears that there is an impending operation in their town. They get info identifying a platoon leader that is part of the force who will be coming to plant their bones in the sand. The enemy gets on the phone with their cousin who is living back in the States or in Britain. The cousin goes and takes the platoon leader's family hostage. The platoon leader has now been compromised, along with the entire mission. This is just one example of many. OPSEC is not something to be taken lightly, no matter what your opinion of the war is.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 09:21 PM
link   
Hey Jack we finally agree on something for once.

Seems I remember the NYTimes was involved in a similar situation where they revealed crucial information about a top secret Iraqi mission.
Only difference was it happened beforehand.

No wonder they keep losing readers.



posted on Mar, 1 2008 @ 09:29 PM
link   
Funny how Americans fall all over themselves when it comes to the Royals...witness the love for Diana, and the creation of a surrogate "Camelot" with the Kennedys...but when it comes down to actually treating them responsibly, Matt Drudge drops a dime on Harry.

We see them as traditional adjuncts to our collective identity...you Yanks figure they're simply celebrities and accorded the same rights as Brittany Spears.

Strictly my humble opinion, of course.

[edit on 2-3-2008 by JohnnyCanuck]




top topics



 
2

log in

join