Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’

The new “laws of war” were released as part of a book of instructions on legitimate warfare practices approved by the United States military.

The Pentagon just changed the rules of war to include legitimizing the killing of any journalists they deem “belligerent.”

The new “laws of war” were released as part of a book of instructions on legitimate warfare practices approved by the United States military.

This “rule book” of sorts details what the US government deems the acceptable ways of killing those they claim are the “enemy”… including journalists whose reporting they do not approve.

The manual explains that the Pentagon considers such journalists “unprivileged belligerents,” even though they are not “enemy combatants.”

This distinction is important for the Pentagon, since the battles against Muqtada as-Sadr’s “Jaysh al-Mahdi” militia was a fight the US picked over a newsletter America did not approve of. When the military tried to stop the presses, Sadr’s army took up arms against the US forces.

We don’t hear a lot about that in the media or government these days, because those battles didn’t exactly end in the US’s favor…

Now, the American 1,176-page “Department of Defense Law of War Manual” says that it is perfectly legitimate to shoot, explode, bomb, stab, or cut journalists they deem “belligerent.”

They seem to want to make sure they cover all the ways they will kill enemy-reporters. They clarify that poison and asphyxiating gases are still no-nos that will not be employed in the war against journalists.

“In general, journalists are civilians,” the manual reads. “However, journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces, or unprivileged belligerents.”

Professor of Journalism at Georgetown Chris Chambers told RT News that he doesn’t know what this means, since “the Geneva Convention, other tenets of international law, and even United States law – federal courts have spoken on this – doesn’t have this thing on ‘unprivileged belligerents’.”

Even embedded journalists with military forces are supposed to be protected under international law.

“It gives them license to attack or even murder journalists that they don’t particularly like but aren’t on the other side,” Chambers added.

RT notes that Pentagon “did not specify the exact circumstances under which a journalist might be declared an unprivileged belligerent,” but Chambers explains that “their legal department is going over it, as is the National Press Club and the Society of Professional Journalists.”

http://www.mintpressnews.com/pentagon-legalizes-killing-journalists-as-law-of-war/206990/


Don't get too bolshie Ben

Every time you think the West cannot get more undemocratic and authoritarian, it does. This is just horrendous.

“It’s 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. “We do not think that there is any legal significance to the manual listing unprivileged belligerents as sometimes being journalists because the manual does not, itself, create new law,” Col. Sowers said.

“That last sentence simply reflects that, in certain cases, persons who act as journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces or unprivileged belligerents rather than civilians. The fact that a person is a journalist does not prevent that person from becoming an unprivileged belligerent.”

It would, there's a good little boy, doing what he's told.  Big Brother will be pleased with you, no chance of you being put in Room 101.

I hope they are careful about it, "belligerent" doesn't seem a very solid basis for judgement..

I do not think they stated this for the reasons given.
The US is trying new strategies. One that is attempting to counter the battle they are losing at the moment. Dealing with ISIS's propaganda.
They are attempting here to starve off any real journalists from documented ISIS in their campaigns through fear. As how many Journalists would now worry they could be mistaken for a terrorist if a soldiers like was at risk? Its very clever and is making a weak argument based off another time this happened, but it is all they need to implement this policy.
I really this this is more about a mind games war now.
They are attempting to starve ISIS of anyone being dumb enough to join their battles groups to document.

I doubt they would ever even really use this.
I think this is all about starving ISIS of many stories not being published.

Well that is my take

mmmm...I'm not generally for suppressing the press, however perhaps the media itself should look at its behaviour over the years.

maybe, just maybe, the variuos govts have got fed up of every little thing they do being photographed and commented on, then presented to the surrender monkey lefytists as ammunition to attack their own armed forces.

perhaps gradually we will find that our armed forces are allowed to get on with the necessarily grisly business of war, without having to worry about some self seeking over paid camera monkey out to grab his moment of fame and fortune.....

That would have worked well in the Vietnam war, no pictures of napalmed children, no news of My Lai, what nice ignorant well behaved civilians we would have been, and the atrocities could have gone on and on.

sassy wrote:It would, there's a good little boy, doing what he's told.  Big Brother will be pleased with you, no chance of you being put in Room 101.

I will take that as another compliment Sassy.
You want me censured and punished by being sent to the basement, so you can have my views silenced.
Just like the BDS attempt to constantly do.
You cannot think outside the box. I am confident I understand why they have done this, but what do you do.
Admit you fear debating me and want me sent to the basement for doing nothing wrong tonight. Leaving the only possible reason why you want me there is to stop any my counter arguments. That you clearly feel counter your views. I do not want anyone to leave, but it seems you think I should leave.
You walked into that one Sassy. As if you believed in your views, you would not wish to have me silenced.
Clearly you do not by your admission.

and ...possibly....america would have won....

war is NOT about niceties, it is a foul and viscious thing....

what is the prime objective of the military in a war......?

as opposed to the govt objectives which may be many.....

And you think America winning would have been a GOOD thing?

Bloody madness.

sassy wrote:That would have worked well in the Vietnam war, no pictures of napalmed children, no news of My Lai, what nice ignorant well behaved civilians we would have been, and the atrocities could have gone on and on.

We get countless information all the time and this is not stopping journalists from going anywhere other than with battle groups that would be in the immediate are of conflict. So you are still going to have countless reporting. Its doing three things.

1) Its to remove journalists from an already dangerous situation in a combat zone. I

2) To starve ISIS of its media time.

3) To prevent any journalists from being captured in a conflict zone of combat. We already see what ISIS does to western journalists.

maybe maybe not...i dont pretend to understand the causes and resons behind that piece of insanity, nor is it in any particular relevant.....we were discussing the effect of the media in the eventual out come.

now imagine the same scenario , when Isis becomes big enough to threaten the west

and the journos go all out to help Isis and the surrender monkeys win.....

i dont think so somehow........

The journalists go all out to show how vile ISIS are, and we wouldn't know half the horrors they have done without the reporting.   'Surrender monkeys'!!!!   I don't know one person who would surrender to ISIS, and thats because the journalists have reported quite how foul they are without pulling any punches.

mentor wrote:and ...possibly....america would have won....

war is NOT about niceties, it is a foul and viscious thing....

what is the prime objective of the military in a war......?

as opposed to the govt objectives which may be many.....

Absolutely 100% correct.
No such reservations were made in WW2, as it was total war, vastly more so on the eastern front.
We try to engage in conflicts, constantly treading on egg shells, providing the enemy with a distinct advantage. Being as these rules of engagement do not apply to them.

To me it was one to many countries invaded in a short space of time to a very unstable region. As they had not stabilized Afghanistan when they invaded Iraq. Most forces were then in Iraq and the initiative had then passed back to the Taliban. Who then had time to regroup and reform. The Taliban was not defeated. They had been shattered and fragmented the Taliban, but they never were completely defeated. If Afghanistan had been completed, then there is a very good chance that if they had delayed a few years of which it would have taken to pacify Afghanistan, it may have been achievable.

sassy wrote:The journalists go all out to show how vile ISIS are, and we wouldn't know half the horrors they have done without the reporting.   'Surrender monkeys'!!!!   I don't know one person who would surrender to ISIS, and thats because the journalists have reported quite how foul they are without pulling any punches.

all the while crippling and preventing (out of fear of press reporting) any effective action against them

you think war against isis is like past wars ...it isnt, even WWII with its attendant horrors was nothing but a bar brawl between otherwise friendly chums compared to whats comming.
You had better wrap your head round the fact that, sooner or later our children or grand children will be faced with a war, the like of which have never been known.
It will be , of necessity, one of utter and total extinction for one side or the other...

If America had won the Vietnam war is would have been a disaster for Vietnam, and it was only because the American population knew what was happening that it was stopped.

It appears you want to do away with democracy and be run by the military. They are our servants, not the other way round.

Bloody nuts you are.

Working on that principle, the German people were quite right to follow Hitler, because they should not have questioned what their military and government were doing.

sassy wrote:If America had won the Vietnam war is would have been a disaster for Vietnam, and it was only because the American population knew what was happening that it was stopped.  

It appears you want to do away with democracy and be run by the military.  They are our servants, not the other way round.

Bloody nuts you are.

Again you will still have all the western reporters.
Its only those within ISIS combat groups or enemy armed groups. (even my point being too close increases the risk of capture for western journalists also)
So your point is completely moot. These events will still get reported
Most of the media was western medias that reported back about the Vietnam war

most of them did........

only a very brave few objected (for obvious reasons)

mentor wrote:most of them did........

only a very brave few objected (for obvious reasons)

Exactly, and that is what you are arguing for doing away with, because they only objected when they knew what was going on, whichever way they found out. In this day and age, it's journalists and media. Journalists in Germany who told what was going on were killed.

sassy wrote:

mentor wrote:most of them did........

only a very brave few objected (for obvious reasons)

Exactly, and that is what you are arguing for doing away with, because they only objected when they knew what was going on, whichever way they found out.   In this day and age, it's journalists and media.   Journalists in Germany who told what was going on were killed.

Seriously, read the publication again.
It speaks of foreign journalists as possible terrorists within combat groups in areas of combat.
The coverage is still going to happen, though far less giving ISIS the media attention they grave.
You can still report from the battle, within a combat zone , on the allied side.

Do you have the least comprehension of what open war against ISIS would entail....

in order to win we would have to exterminate them utterly, comprehensively and mercilessly

absolute extiction

no quarter and no nice sentiment...

NOT something we would want, but something we would have to be prepared to do....

Don't get what your point is. If it's being done on our behalf we have to know what is happening. Do we have democracy or not? Are you arguing for a military state where the generals are in control and answer to no-one? Because that way madness lies. Do you think people would not know the lengths that the military would have to go to? Do you think the Nurenberg Trials should not have happened and the military should not be held to account if they murder civilians etc as the Germans did?

Some more info for people to read and when you read more, the more it makes sense:





Journalists, propagandists, spies

In the age of attacks by radical Islamic militants, unprivileged belligerents most often fall into the category of terrorists. If captured, they are not entitled to all the rights of a prisoner of war under the Geneva Conventions, are subject to indefinite detention and can be tried by a commission or war crimes tribunal instead of a civilian court.

Perhaps the best-known terrorism publication is Inspire magazine, started by al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) and its American-born operative, the late Anwar al-Awlaki.

He viewed the online English language diatribes as a way to recruit Muslims in the West, just as the Islamic State, also known as ISIL or ISIS, sees social media as the means to persuade followers to commit murder in their countries.

“Some people might characterize the persons who put out Inspire magazine as ‘journalists,’ but ‘propagandist’ would be more apt,” Col. Sowers said. “Members of nonstate armed groups, such as al Qaeda, who also do work that could be characterized as journalism, would continue to be unprivileged belligerents notwithstanding their work as journalists. As another example, enemy spies that used journalism as a cover would likely also be considered unprivileged belligerents if they are caught while engaged in espionage.”

The Islamic State has taken the idea of a propaganda sheet such as Inspire and expanded it, times thousands, in waves of social media blasts on Twitter and elsewhere. The aim is the same: spread propaganda about the supposed Muslim utopia being built in Syria and Iraq and recruit terrorists.

A prominent writer for the Islamic State is a British resident who moved his family to Syria. Last month, he published something of a travel guide on Iraq and Syria and how the terrorist group will take care of immigrant fighters as they wage jihad.

“A Brief Guide to the Islamic State [2015]” is written by Abu Rumaysah al Britani, who in Britain went by the name Siddhartha Dhar, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), which provided an analysis of his guide.

The law of war

“If you thought London or New York was cosmopolitan then wait until you step foot in the Islamic State, because it screams diversity,” al Britani wrote of the self-proclaimed country that routinely commits mass murder. “In my short time here I have met people from absolutely every walk of life, proof that the Caliphate’s pulling power is strong and tenacious. The country has also become a magnet for talent. It has been successful in recruiting skilled professionals that are crucial for state building. Scholars, judges, preachers, soldiers, doctors, data analysts, telecommunication experts, economists, mechanics, chefs, teachers, civil engineers etc. are just some examples that I can rattle off the top of my head, and are also real life examples of people I have physically met.”

MEMRI has identified a number of Islamic State fighters who present themselves as journalists.

One is a British citizen, Omar Hussein, whose Twitter account is under the name Abu Awlaki.

Last week, he tweeted an article from a fellow fighter urging women to come to Syria and pledging that the Islamic State-controlled areas of “Sham,” a reference to Syria, are safe: “Daily life goes on for the civilians, the souks open up, the business men go to their offices, the children go to school, and life goes on like normal. I have been in Sham since January 2014 and I have never seen dead bodies lying on the road, or ever had fear of the enemy shooting me while I’m walking the streets “

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/21/military-manual-declares-war-on-spies-propagandist/#ixzz3eJ7SJHlh

I'll carry on discussing with you Victor, as far as I am concerned, Didge is an irrelevance.

well I'm off to me pit...cos I'm off out to wales (by passing the land of seren) tomorrow

sassy wrote:I'll carry on discussing with you Victor, as far as I am concerned, Didge is an irrelevance.

Or wimping out after I pointed out your point had no validity.
There will still be journalists covering these events.
What is advised is to not be with ISIS or other terror combat groups.
That is why you fail to answer my points because yours were moot sassy.

I see the merit in this as it will stare ISIS of the media attention it craves.
You fail to understand strategy.

Anyway goodnight everyone

mentor wrote:well I'm off to me pit...cos I'm off out to wales (by passing the land of seren) tomorrow

Have a great time.

Night

mentor wrote:well I'm off to me pit...cos I'm off out to wales (by passing the land of seren) tomorrow

Oh Lor, don't bring up that name! Sheep shaggers of the world unite lol. Have a chat tomorrow.

Didge seems to think the new rule book is just for dealing with ISIS and like a nice little sheeps he baaaaa's yes sir, no sir.

This “rule book” of sorts details what the US government deems the acceptable ways of killing those they claim are the “enemy”… including journalists whose reporting they do not approve.

The manual explains that the Pentagon considers such journalists “unprivileged belligerents,” even though they are not “enemy combatants.”

Now he'll carry on bleating for hours after saying he was going, claiming he 'won', he understands and nobody else does, we are his toys to play with, try again, etc etc etc. But a boring idiot the man is.

sassy wrote:Didge seems to think the new rule book is just for dealing with ISIS and like a nice little sheeps he baaaaa's yes sir, no sir.

This “rule book” of sorts details what the US government deems the acceptable ways of killing those they claim are the “enemy”… including journalists whose reporting they do not approve.

The manual explains that the Pentagon considers such journalists “unprivileged belligerents,” even though they are not “enemy combatants.”

You clearly cannot read, so read back. It will apply in any combat situation with such groups and rightly so
I love how you use your interpreted version by a conspiracy site where I provide what the military actually say about this:






Reply with quote
Edit/Delete this post

Re: Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’

Post by Cuchulain Yesterday at 11:16 pm
“It’s 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. “We do not think that there is any legal significance to the manual listing unprivileged belligerents as sometimes being journalists because the manual does not, itself, create new law,” Col. Sowers said.

“That last sentence simply reflects that, in certain cases, persons who act as journalists may be members of the armed forces, persons authorized to accompany the armed forces or unprivileged belligerents rather than civilians. The fact that a person is a journalist does not prevent that person from becoming an unprivileged belligerent.”

Read more: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jun/21/military-manual-declares-war-on-spies-propagandist/#ixzz3eIsBBWHs

sassy wrote:Now he'll carry on bleating for hours after saying he was going, claiming he 'won', he understands and nobody else does, we are his toys to play with, try again, etc etc etc.  But a boring idiot the man is.

Nothing about the debate, only poor deflections trying to demonize the poster.
Which as seen sassy's poor attempts to deflect fail every time

This is horrible. The media isn't perfect but it does shine a lot of light on the actions of those who have power and wield force, and the first thing any dictator or authoritarian tries to do is limit or control the press.

I personally don't understand how anybody who doesn't trust politicians would trust them when their enforcers grant themselves the power to kill people who are reporting on their actions.

Ben_Reilly wrote:This is horrible. The media isn't perfect but it does shine a lot of light on the actions of those who have power and wield force, and the first thing any dictator or authoritarian tries to do is limit or control the press.

I personally don't understand how anybody who doesn't trust politicians would trust them when their enforcers grant themselves the power to kill people who are reporting on their actions.

Its not claiming the media are not perfect, but that foreign journalists need to stay clear of enemy combat groups with combat zones. Remember it is the journalist placing themselves in harms way, of which if they intend to travel with the enemy forces, they are placing themselves at risk.
It starves ISIS of its media sources. This is what this is really about as there will be plenty of Journalists reporting from the allied side


Anyway have to go Ben, or I will be here for ages lol replying to posts.

All the best

Ben_Reilly wrote:This is horrible. The media isn't perfect but it does shine a lot of light on the actions of those who have power and wield force, and the first thing any dictator or authoritarian tries to do is limit or control the press.

I personally don't understand how anybody who doesn't trust politicians would trust them when their enforcers grant themselves the power to kill people who are reporting on their actions.

Exactly! Hey, we know you do things you shouldn't, we know you abuse power, but that's ok, you say it's ok to kill journalists and specify the ways to kill them, and we'll agree, because WE ARE BLOODY STUPID AND CAN'T THINK FOR OURSELVES DOH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

this is madness

killing people for reporting the situation? the BAD guy does this stuff not the good guy and if Our gov't isn't the good guy
ROLL OUT THE GUILLOTINES
fuck this shit
Why are we electing EVIL PEOPLE!

and typical freedom hating coward throwing away freedom Cause he is scared of ISIS

veya_victaous wrote:this is madness

killing people for reporting the situation? the BAD guy does this stuff not the good guy and if Our gov't isn't the good guy
ROLL OUT THE GUILLOTINES
fuck this shit
Why are we electing EVIL PEOPLE!

and typical freedom hating coward throwing away freedom Cause he is scared of ISIS              

I think people are fed up with apologists to extremists like yourself.
War is war and its time you sissy's understood this.
War's are not won by having your hands tied behind your back and some wet lefties like you seem to think they should be. Its because of people like you that we have to hinder our armed forces in combat. Allow trained armed forces to do their job, one of which you have no comprehension of.

IF you think we need anything more than we have to defeat ISIS you are pathetic and stupid and Should have NO SAY at all because you are too dumb and useless Because defeating ISIS would be as easy as shit if the USA decided to, Australia could do it by itself. WE DON'T WANT TO because, Why? it wont change the fact people hate us because we allow our corporation to enslave and steal from them.

War is War And We are fucking good at it!!! Which is why we have keeping more than half the world in poverty for our material gain. Coward fucks like you need to fucking go back to sucking ya mums tits Cause WE DO NEED CRY BABY COWARDS ON OUR TEAM we are Smashing everyone the ONLY thing a white man has to fear is that Our super rich will get greedy enough to want to turn us into slaves too.
You want to be a slave Fine, But BRAVE GOOD MEN have no intention to be.
I would end your pathetic life like you were ISIS SCUM, Before I accept being the slave you so want to be! That is not a threat just a simple statement of fact, YOU ARE THE ENEMY OF GOOD MEN. If push comes to shove You will go against the wall too. You are pathetic and have no faith in our armed forces, You are a disgusting Coward. that may as well be a traitor since you throw away the good of our nations because you a pissing you pants at some fucking backwards ass hill Sheppard, PATHETIC!
You think you are anything like a fucking solider? You probably never even been in fight.
you coward, you insult soldiers by suggesting they could possibly be as cowardly as you!!!

I think that to change into ISIS in order to fight ISIS would be the ultimate acknowledgment that people can't govern themselves, that we're hopeless without an iron-fisted authoritarian ruling us like a god, and that everything we've built our civilizations upon throughout the cultural West is erroneous.

If freedom and self-determination aren't the best way, we don't even know ourselves!

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think that to change into ISIS in order to fight ISIS would be the ultimate acknowledgment that people can't govern themselves, that we're hopeless without an iron-fisted authoritarian ruling us like a god, and that everything we've built our civilizations upon throughout the cultural West is erroneous.

If freedom and self-determination aren't the best way, we don't even know ourselves!

Why are so many of you lefties so utterly clueless Ben.

We are talking about war.
Journalists are there at their own risk.
You are placing soldiers into a difficult situation in combat and they have to be because of the journalists, because they are traveling with the enemy of which the enemy has no care for the sanctity of life.
You want our soldiers to fight with both hands tied behind their backs.
You make the job of winning wars impossible because you are completely wet fish.
Imagine your philosophy on the Nazi's, you think the best way to defeat the Nazi's is to change them.

One word

Daft

Like many of the Nazi's, many of those who have joined ISIS are indoctrinated, if they cannot see that butchering and murdering people is wrong and instead believe they are justified in doing so, then the chances of changing their views is remote to say the least. It shows you have little comprehension of ideologies and the resolve of people of hate.

Its war, its a combat zone and an army has to first and foremost look to the protection of its own troops.


I am not even going to reply to Veya, because the man is a boneheaded wackadoodle that would surrender everyone to the enemy and he is very wrong about anyone not being able to be defeated. They very much can be with different tactics, ones he would not like but would certainly defeat them. WE should just send him out alone to take on ISIS, they would beg to be taken prisoner they would be so much in pain listening to his bullshit.

Most of the Nazis weren't put to death, they were defeated and simply stopped being Nazis. I suspect that ISIS also fills its ranks with people who don't dare defy the powerful leaders who have the most immediate impact on their lives and are simply trying to get along as best as they can.

Defeating ISIS doesn't mean killing everyone who has fought on their side, and it certainly doesn't mean killing journalists who wouldn't be firing at anybody in the first place.

Mind you, if it were up to me, the major news outlets of the world would agree to dress journalists in war zones in hunters' orange and perhaps a fancy hat as well -- and never have them armed. Basic rule would be no orange + gun in hand = fire at will.

I think I'd happily wear something like this if it saved my life:

Ben_Reilly wrote:I think that to change into ISIS in order to fight ISIS would be the ultimate acknowledgment that people can't govern themselves, that we're hopeless without an iron-fisted authoritarian ruling us like a god, and that everything we've built our civilizations upon throughout the cultural West is erroneous.

If freedom and self-determination aren't the best way, we don't even know ourselves!

you pretty much summed up Didge's strategy, Act like ISIS to beat ISIS, at this point as far as i am concerned his opinions are as valid as ISIS's since he Aspires to be like ISIS instead of like good men.

If we are going to act like Didge, I'd prefer to NOT to.
I am cool with some sort of Violent revolution to get purge the cowardly from the west
As far as I am concerned he is proof that Democracy fails, you get brain dead cowards voting for Evil because they are too scared to accept the risk inherent with driving most of the world to poverty for financial gain. In a world were men like didge vote we will have an never ending parade of dictators and tyrants.

Ben_Reilly wrote:Most of the Nazis weren't put to death, they were defeated and simply stopped being Nazis. I suspect that ISIS also fills its ranks with people who don't dare defy the powerful leaders who have the most immediate impact on their lives and are simply trying to get along as best as they can.

Defeating ISIS doesn't mean killing everyone who has fought on their side, and it certainly doesn't mean killing journalists who wouldn't be firing at anybody in the first place.

Mind you, if it were up to me, the major news outlets of the world would agree to dress journalists in war zones in hunters' orange and perhaps a fancy hat as well -- and never have them armed. Basic rule would be no orange + gun in hand = fire at will.

I think I'd happily wear something like this if it saved my life:

The majority of the Nazi's and those that followed them ideologically were killed in combat.
You are also again mistaken in many cases that they changed their beliefs, in many cases they certainly did not do so and many went on to help the intelligent services of other governments. Stop making up history Ben, because you do not know what you are talking about. Even changing the views of the Hitler Youth was difficult enough in itself.

Nobody is saying we have to kill all of them, but because of the rules of engagement, we tie both our hands behind our backs fighting them. I mean how daft is it that when a Royal Marine shoots a mortally wounded Taliban insurgent he then is placed on trial. They take nothing into consideration of the pain and suffering of our troops when they see their comrades who have come to be family die around them. Situations like this give an advantage to the enemy because they do not apply any rules to combat.

If journalists are stupid enough after being warned not to travel with insurgent combat groups and are shot in a fire fight, then tough shit, that is their own outlook and I am fed up to the teeth of wet fish like yourself making it easier for the enemy and more difficult for are own troops in combat. Its because of wet people that conflicts have become more difficult.

What you forget is this is war and against a group of people so brainwashed with hate, they abide by no rules. Let me know when that point sinks in and they will be destroyed when we show the resolve to do so, which will mean no mercy. It will mean some civilians who follow die to in this harsh battles to come. Such methods were used in WW2, as many examples you will see many French civilians died caught up in the conflict. That is war and its time you stopped interfering in this wars that just ends up costing soldiers their lives

Ben_Reilly wrote:This is horrible. The media isn't perfect but it does shine a lot of light on the actions of those who have power and wield force, and the first thing any dictator or authoritarian tries to do is limit or control the press.

I personally don't understand how anybody who doesn't trust politicians would trust them when their enforcers grant themselves the power to kill people who are reporting on their actions.

The problem is that we are talking about two different things: 1) real journalists, who want to inform the public; and 2) people who are not on ‘our’ side.  If there are two different categories, then there are two different adversaries: 1) journalists “whose reporting [the authorities] do not approve”; and 2) enemy combatants.

OP wrote:The manual explains that the Pentagon considers such journalists “unprivileged belligerents,” even though they are not “enemy combatants.”

If we blur the distinction between the two, what do we accomplish?  We gain the cheap thrill of eradicating someone’s passing, inconvenient comment, at the risk of legitimizing a shutdown of all discussion, and eventually all information.

And when free discussion and information are integral parts of the political system to which we belong, the system itself is sacrificed.  So it’s the slippery slope argument all over again…a quick and dirty today, turns into wholesale changes in your whole constitution tomorrow.  

We’ve already seen this in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, suspension of habeus corpus, and the rise of the National Security Agency (NSA).  We might view these things as temporary expedients now, but they tend to become a permanent part of life as institutions augur for their own permanent existence in the future.  Does anyone think the NSA is temporary?  If we start identifying certain journalists as “unprivileged belligerents” does anyone seriously think that we won't fancy that idea in the future?  How about...domestically? Hmmm...shoot to kill Tories and Republicans.

There is one massive problem with your counter point Quill.
Its already not free journalism with ISIS. Its censured and edited those that are allowed to come along with them for the ride.
We are talking about some who are ISIS members part of a propaganda machine, that care little for the lives of others through a belief of martyrdom. They are brainwashing people to come to their deaths. That is not freedom of journalism, that abuses free journalism by not standing up to the requirements of being fair.
If freedom is denied in the first place, how can you use freedom as a counter argument?

Those who knowingly go with ISIS to report unintentionally aid them in propaganda. This stops that and the freedom of humans facing extermination outweighs the ethical views over a journalist.  Far more people's lives are at risk than journalists.
Hence the verdict, the journalists have no case.

I will leave you with one point before I go.
Do you know what is the saddest part about the argument from the lefties on this thread. Is that its about their own selfish needs to know every intimate detail of battles than the safety of a soldiers life.
That is what this boils down to. People's needs to know over human life. They feel more safe knowing than the risk that soldier faces with insurgents where some are claiming to be journalists.
How many placed in their situations would feel after they have witnessed insurgents claim to be and then act otherwise.

Can any of you really place yourself inside the shoes of those facing this kind of combat?

Hence the rule is good it protects lives on both counts. It stops many journalists traveling with them and being mistaken and shot dead. It also protects the soldier who could end up wrongly trusting someone with his life.

Tactically, this rule makes sense for both soldiers and journalists and yet the left cry freedom, when they never had any freedom from the start. No journalist does in war, especially when you are with combat groups that do not care for the sanctity of life


Laters

So, you are willing to forgo all press freedom as a result? Perhaps a Ministry of Information, along the lines of the NSA?

Don't get me wrong. I'm not adverse; I've got some ideas of my own along those lines. I just want a Democrat in power when we do that.

Original Quill wrote:So, you are willing to forgo all press freedom as a result?  Perhaps a Ministry of Information, along the lines of the NSA?

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not adverse; I've got some ideas of my own along those lines.  I just want a Democrat in power when we do that.

Failed argument.
Its already established there is no press freedom with IS or many Islamic groups.
What the hell did you miss by that?
The freedom argument is moot, there is no freedom to start with

Cuchulain wrote:

Original Quill wrote:So, you are willing to forgo all press freedom as a result?  Perhaps a Ministry of Information, along the lines of the NSA?

Don't get me wrong.  I'm not adverse; I've got some ideas of my own along those lines.  I just want a Democrat in power when we do that.

Failed argument.
Its already established there is no press freedom with IS or many Islamic groups.
What the hell did you miss by that?
The freedom argument is moot, there is no freedom to start with

We are not talking about ISIS. The Pentagon is situated in Arlington, VA. This is a US proposal to do away with free press...it's only a matter of how far they want to go.