Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’

First topic message reminder :

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.

You see you have gone off tangent now to if a war is valid. That is a different argument altogether. This is about the need for changes in the rules of engagement. This is covering a future or ongoing conflict.
You can argue all you like whether they should be there, but this is about those when in combat.

So again

First thing you need to do is speak to the soldiers who have been in combat facing this situation or at least read up on it first before you continue here because you are not looking at this through the eyes of the soldier. You are looking at this from the views of someone who has never faced combat and sits comfortable in his chair failing to grasp or understand the situation.

Until you understand this, your argument fails to even get started

Didge wrote:You see you have gone off tangent now to if a war is valid. That is a different argument altogether. This is about the need for changes in the rules of engagement. This is covering a future or ongoing conflict.

You can argue all you like whether they should be there, but this is about those when in combat.

It is not another issue at all. The distinction is the difference between a political issue and an issue of imminent threat. We both agree that this is a PR battle, and a part of the battle is the question of, why are we there? Discussion of the political may resolve the conflict.

The Pentagon is taking sides on the political issue, and utilizing their option of force to unfairly influence political discussion. That is precisely what freedom of speech exists to prevent. So this is actually a matter of the US Constitution and freedom of information. The political in this is very real and the Pentagon is trying to suppress discussion by gunfire.

Didge wrote:So again

First thing you need to do is speak to the soldiers who have been in combat facing this situation or at least read up on it first before you continue here because you are not looking at this through the eyes of the soldier. You are looking at this from the views of someone who has never faced combat and sits comfortable in his chair failing to grasp or understand the situation.

Until you understand this, your argument fails to even get started

You are trying to isolate the issue—whether intentionally or inadvertently—and then artificially address it. To say that this is simply a combat matter—you say, “ through the eyes of the soldier”—is to refuse to recognize the political aspect of the discussion. Until you recognize the political aspect, it is to no avail.

You are still going off the point Quill and I am not going to be pushed onto another debate topic no matter how bad you try.
This is about the rules of engagement not if a war is valid of not.


So again

First thing you need to do is speak to the soldiers who have been in combat facing this situation or at least read up on it first before you continue here because you are not looking at this through the eyes of the soldier. You are looking at this from the views of someone who has never faced combat and sits comfortable in his chair failing to grasp or understand the situation.

Until you understand this, your argument fails to even get started

Didge wrote:You are still going off the point Quill and I am not going to be pushed onto another debate topic no matter how bad you try.
This is about the rules of engagement not if a war is valid of not.

You need to face the issue...squarely and directly.  Yes, this is about “rules of engagement”…the rules that say that the Pentagon works for us!  If you don’t wish to confront the issue of the military vs. freedom of information didge, then fine…my point goes unopposed and the matter is settled.  I win.

Didge wrote:First thing you need to do is speak to the soldiers who have been in combat facing this situation or at least read up on it first before you continue here because you are not looking at this through the eyes of the soldier. You are looking at this from the views of someone who has never faced combat and sits comfortable in his chair failing to grasp or understand

The soldiers, officers and generals work for us.  They need to be commanded that news gatherers pose no threat.  If reporters do threaten they are not news gatherers, and there is no need for this directive.  And if our soldiers are so inept they can’t tell the difference, we need new soldiers or better training.  So put that issue aside.  

Here, we are talking about a directive in a manual that says news reporters are the enemy.  By definition, it speaks of members of the press and not about other soldiers.  It is not talking about how reporters can be confused with soldiers…if it were, it would say that.  It does not; it speaks directly to killing of reporters and news gatherers.  So this is a rule of engagement of the press, not real combatants.

This is a declaration in a manual, without regard to any situation in the field.  An open declaration of war on information gatherers has nothing to do with a guns and mortars war.  The reason why the Pentagon wants to shoot reporters is they realize that they are losing the PR battle.  In an age of information, the PR battle has become the most effective conflict weapon, and the Pentagon is not very good at it.

If you like, look at it this way:

1. The enemy has come up with a new and ingenious tool of warfare…the public relations gambit.
 
2. An intelligent military studies new weapons and devises ways to combat them.  Napoleon came up with the rolling charge; Longstreet came up with the rifled barrel and defensive warfare.

3. When challenged by a more sophisticated tactic or firearm, it is not very intelligent to keep doing that by which you are being beaten.  Shooting off firearms in a fit of frustration is rather like a child throwing toys in a temper tantrum.

The Pentagon needs to devise a better device or tactic.  I don't know what that would be, but I do know that what they are doing is a born loser.  The epitome of stupidity is to keep doing what you are doing, when all you are doing is losing.

Now, in addition to the military ineptness of the Pentagon merely shooting off firearms to show its childish reaction, killing reporters has the inconvenient consequence of being against our Constitution.  Thus, this directive constitutes an amendment to the constitution, saying that it is a legitimate tactic to kill news gatherers if what they write is unfavorable.  There is a way to amend the US Constitution, and a military murder is not it.

Look, if they want to amend the Constitution to say that it is fair to suppress speech and the press, say so…but don’t pretend in the same breath that you are still fighting for the same Constitution.  Don’t say you are fighting for the land of the free, and you will kill anyone who doesn’t conform.

Cuchulain wrote:You are still going off the point Quill and I am not going to be pushed onto another debate topic no matter how bad you try.
This is about the rules of engagement not if a war is valid of not.


So again

First thing you need to do is speak to the soldiers who have been in combat facing this situation or at least read up on it first before you continue here because you are not looking at this through the eyes of the soldier. You are looking at this from the views of someone who has never faced combat and sits comfortable in his chair failing to grasp or understand the situation.

Until you understand this, your argument fails to even get started

Repeating above as it has not been applied which is vital to such a discourse on rules of engagement.

I am giving you one last chance to stay on point Quill.
Did you research into anything in regards to those who have been in combat?

No, you went off again assumptions you have yourself.

This is about the rules of engagement in regards to difficulties that US forces now face in the world today.

The soldiers work for the nation, not just you but everybody. So to use that card is utterly poor.
Military experts are going to be better placed than politicians or former civil Judges for that matter on the rules of engagement.

Its not a declaration of war on journalists. Again you use poor emotive reasoning when this only ever refers to enemy combat groups. That means journalists can cover the combat areas where ever they like from. They are being advise to stay away from extremist insurgent groups and rightly so.

The Pentagon devised the best policy in regards to the safety of its own troops, which it is their responsibility to do.

You ave one last chance Quill, then if you fail again to even look into combat and soldiers experience and ignore this most important aspect into account before anything else. Then the debate is over on this topic.
As you failed to look at this objectionably from the soldiers position

Cuchulain wrote:

Cuchulain wrote:You are still going off the point Quill and I am not going to be pushed onto another debate topic no matter how bad you try.
This is about the rules of engagement not if a war is valid of not.


So again

First thing you need to do is speak to the soldiers who have been in combat facing this situation or at least read up on it first before you continue here because you are not looking at this through the eyes of the soldier. You are looking at this from the views of someone who has never faced combat and sits comfortable in his chair failing to grasp or understand the situation.

Until you understand this, your argument fails to even get started

Repeating above as it has not been applied which is vital to such a discourse on rules of engagement.

I am giving you one last chance to stay on point Quill.

Oh my!

Cuchulain wrote:Did you research into anything in regards to those who have been in combat?

No need.  I have defeated all of your points having to do with throwing temper tantrums.  I have defeated all your points having to do with soldiers in the field.  I have defeated all your points about how news gatherers pose a military threat. I have defeated all your points about the scope of this subject.

And I have moved on to a new challenge, for which you have no answer.  Hence, like a broken record you keep returning to the same losing sound bites. Look and see:

Cuchulain wrote:No, you went off again assumptions you have yourself.

This is about the rules of engagement in regards to difficulties that US forces now face in the world today.

The soldiers work for the nation, not just you but everybody. So to use that card is utterly poor.
Military experts are going to be better placed than politicians or former civil Judges for that matter on the rules of engagement.

Its not a declaration of war on journalists. Again you use poor emotive reasoning when this only ever refers to enemy combat groups. That means journalists can cover the combat areas where ever they like from. They are being advise to stay away from extremist insurgent groups and rightly so.

The Pentagon devised the best policy in regards to the safety of its own troops, which it is their responsibility to do.

You ave one last chance Quill, then if you fail again to even look into combat and soldiers experience and ignore this most important aspect into account before anything else. Then the debate is over on this topic.
As you failed to look at this objectionably from the soldiers position

Haha...a clear win!   I's moves like a cat...

Oh well you had your chance Quill.
Not going to go around in circles mate, where you make very poor assumptions and ignore the fundamental points in regards to the actual people serving. as that is boring. You will notice I am not going to play silly games where posters as you have done here try to steer the debate onto things like politicians or freedom of press when neither have any sense to the debate

All the best

Original Quill wrote:

Like I say, stay on topic Mighty Mouse. and do not forget Penfold.

Be over in a minute...needs to take care of this guy.