Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsPentagon manual declares journalists suitable targets
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/21/military-manual-declares-war-on-spies-propagandist/?page=all
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
5 replies, 664 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (3)
ReplyReply to this post
5 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Pentagon manual declares journalists suitable targets (Original Post)
reddread
Aug 2015
OP
Octafish
(55,745 posts)1. Is it fascism yet?
The manual defines them this way: In general, journalists are civilians. However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents.
Then, there's that West Point prof William C. Bradford who calls war critics "targets."
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/aug/29/west-point-professor-target-legal-critics-war-on-terror
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)2. The explanation makes some sense...
See below. Sounds like the clash of two now muddied terms has created big problems. "Combatant" is muddied in the new world of terrorism & asymetric warfare, and "Journalist" is now anyone with a blog. If a "journalist" is conducting surveillance of opposing forces or attempting to recruit combatants or perhaps engaging in even more overt military actions, do they deserve the protections a Walter Cronkite reporting live from a war zone would have deserved?
It reminds me of one of the ways that client/attorney privilege can be pierced. If the attorney is part of the criminal conspiracy or has taken part in crimes along with the client, its no longer an attorney-client relationship.
Michael Rubin, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said the manual reflects todays muddled world of journalism.
Its a realization that not everyone abides by the same standards we do, said Mr. Rubin. Just as Hamas uses United Nations schools as weapons depots and Iran uses charity workers for surveillance, many terrorist groups use journalists as cover.
Mr. Rubin recalled that two al Qaeda terrorists posed as journalists to assassinate anti-Taliban leader Ahmad Shah Massoud. Chechen Islamists went on missions with camera crews.
Journalists are the new consultant. Anyone can claim to be one, he said. No American serviceman should ever be killed because a politician told them they had to take a foreign journalist at his or her word.
Army Lt. Col. Joseph R. Sowers, a Pentagon spokesman, explained the reasoning behind the inclusion of unprivileged belligerents as journalists.
reddread
(6,896 posts)3. John Yoo should be able to clarify any rough edges
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)4. Maybe you are a John Yoo fan, I'm not. nt
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)5. According to the Moonies, anyway...
Sid