Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’

by Guest Sat Jun 27, 2015 11:02 pm

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 Evil or Very Mad

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

by Guest Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

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.

Nonsense.
It was introduce to protect both journalists and soldiers.
For journalists to go along with he enemy is not free press and no argument you can make will back that.
As the enemy in any conflict will always censor what you intent to post.
That is not free press. Hence the argument is flawed over freedom of press

by Original Quill Mon Jun 29, 2015 7:52 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

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.

Nonsense.
It was introduce to protect both journalists and soldiers.
For journalists to go along with he enemy is not free press and no argument you can make will back that.

So, you want to distinguish between 'good' journalists and 'bad' journalist ("unprivileged belligerents")? We could give them lapel labels, like they do at conventions and business meetings. The problem is when the enemy gets the ability to print up identical labels.

The enemy isn't journalism, nor freedom of information.

by veya_victaous Mon Jun 29, 2015 11:27 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

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.

Nonsense.
It was introduce to protect both journalists and soldiers.
For journalists to go along with he enemy is not free press and no argument you can make will back that.

So, you want to distinguish between 'good' journalists and 'bad' journalist ("unprivileged belligerents")? We could give them lapel labels, like they do at conventions and business meetings. The problem is when the enemy gets the ability to print up identical labels.

The enemy isn't journalism, nor freedom of information.

Actually it is the enemy of oppressive evil regimes Neutral

It should not be our enemy, this is clearly a turning point for our governance that we take the high road or become Scum no worse than the evil we say we fight against.

Cowards are happy to be scum if they think they will be safe, all their arguments boil down to the same thing they are scared and they need someone strong to protect them and they are willing to give away everything for perceived protection truly like cattle and sheep.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 12:03 am

Original Quill wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Nonsense.
It was introduce to protect both journalists and soldiers.
For journalists to go along with he enemy is not free press and no argument you can make will back that.

So, you want to distinguish between 'good' journalists and 'bad' journalist ("unprivileged belligerents")? We could give them lapel labels, like they do at conventions and business meetings. The problem is when the enemy gets the ability to print up identical labels.

The enemy isn't journalism, nor freedom of information.

Never claimed no such thing, if that was the case, all Guardian and BBC Jouranlists would have be shot long ago. This is about the theater of war nd you know when a person is losing the argument they become even more desperate as you have done by claiming labels.
After I show you have no case on free press you still ignore safety and make comparisons to Nazism.
Let me know when you have something intelligence and not desperate

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 1:29 am

Cuchulain wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

So, you want to distinguish between 'good' journalists and 'bad' journalist ("unprivileged belligerents")? We could give them lapel labels, like they do at conventions and business meetings. The problem is when the enemy gets the ability to print up identical labels.

The enemy isn't journalism, nor freedom of information.

Never claimed no such thing, if that was the case, all Guardian and BBC Jouranlists would have be shot long ago. This is about the theater of war nd you know when a person is losing the argument they become even more desperate as you have done by claiming labels.
After I show you have no case on free press you still ignore safety and make comparisons to Nazism.
Let me know when you have something intelligence and not desperate

Well, here you are saying this is a limited situation: 1) limited to the time and place of a “theater of war”; 2) for reasons of “safety”; and 3) strictly limited to persons who are “desperate”. These are your concepts, and I'm even using your own words. And using your limitations, I gather you are trying to distinguish between the ‘privileged belligerent’ and ‘unprivileged belligerent’. Your concepts still leave us completely unclear as to who is an “unprivileged belligerent”.

The problem is, without a free press we won’t know much about it, will we?

What are the boundaries of the “theater of war”? Haven’t we found ISIS sympathizers in New Jersey as well as Kent? If we find a cub reporter in Colorado Springs researching a school newspaper article on ISIS, is s/he an “unprivileged belligerent”?

What is the challenge of “safety”, and at what level is safety being threatened? I understand you can’t reveal state secrets, but are you a threat to safety if you criticize Israel? If you talk about ISIS, or any one of them favorably? I don’t see anyone describing what is the challenge to safety, and who therefore is an "unprivileged belligerent".

And, finally, who or what is “desperate”? If our governments need to constrain freedom of speech, isn’t there a sense in which they are the desperate ones? Isn’t it the ultimate irony if our own government is desperate enough to be deemed an “unprivileged belligerent”?

In the final analysis, you are constructing a theory for me-and-only-me. Anyone in power, anywhere, would want to shut up the critics. The point of law is to construct a set of rules that apply in any situation, without reference to whose ox gets gored.

With the kind of legislative power that only distinguishes between ‘privileged belligerents’ and ‘unprivileged belligerents’, all we have to do is label those Tories and Republicans ‘unprivileged’. Lol. After, it's all arbitrary in the end, depending on what the Pentagon says.

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:11 am

I cant believe the dumb ass is still defending his dumb point MAN you are terrible didge You defend the removal of one of the basic freedom of western society
read
Areopagitica; A speech of Mr. John Milton for the Liberty of Unlicenc’d Printing, to the Parlament of England is a 1644

IT IS EXACTLY TALKING ABOUT A CIVIL WAR LIKE IN SYRIA.
SO again Good people through out history disagree with cowardly fucks like you.
You are Opposed to western ideals Just like ISIS.

YOU lost you have NOT A single valid point in 2 pages on this article Quill And Ben have owned you with every post.

by veya_victaous Tue Jun 30, 2015 3:17 am

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:21 am

Original Quill wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Never claimed no such thing, if that was the case, all Guardian and BBC Jouranlists would have be shot long ago. This is about the theater of war nd you know when a person is losing the argument they become even more desperate as you have done by claiming labels.
After I show you have no case on free press you still ignore safety and make comparisons to Nazism.
Let me know when you have something intelligence and not desperate

Well, here you are saying this is a limited situation: 1) limited to the time and place of a “theater of war”; 2) for reasons of “safety”; and 3) strictly limited to persons who are “desperate”. These are your concepts, and I'm even using your own words. And using your limitations, I gather you are trying to distinguish between the ‘privileged belligerent’ and ‘unprivileged belligerent’. Your concepts still leave us completely unclear as to who is an “unprivileged belligerent”.
Never said this was limited or even you can say it is permanent when policies change all the time and this one has clearly changed due to the conflict and its difficulties.
Its quite simple the situation, where American troops have faced the situation before. So I am not saying it is limited at all. Its not limited to desperate people as the only thing desperate is your reasoning

The problem is, without a free press we won’t know much about it, will we?
Nothing to do with press you are returning to a moot argument. This is not about all of the press either, so on both counts that point is utterly moot

What are the boundaries of the “theater of war”? Haven’t we found ISIS sympathizers in New Jersey as well as Kent? If we find a cub reporter in Colorado Springs researching a school newspaper article on ISIS, is s/he an “unprivileged belligerent”?
Nothing to do with sympathizers. Its about people who are within the combat units of the enemy making them indistinguishable from the enemy, the point that seems to go above you at every turn here

What is the challenge of “safety”, and at what level is safety being threatened? I understand you can’t reveal state secrets, but are you a threat to safety if you criticize Israel? If you talk about ISIS, or any one of them favorably? I don’t see anyone describing what is the challenge to safety, and who therefore is an "unprivileged belligerent".
Its easy to understand and you confusing the matter here, mainly because you have no argument you are desperately going off things that have no relevance here

And, finally, who or what is “desperate”? If our governments need to constrain freedom of speech, isn’t there a sense in which they are the desperate ones? Isn’t it the ultimate irony if our own government is desperate enough to be deemed an “unprivileged belligerent”?

In the final analysis, you are constructing a theory for me-and-only-me. Anyone in power, anywhere, would want to shut up the critics. The point of law is to construct a set of rules that apply in any situation, without reference to whose ox gets gored.

With the kind of legislative power that only distinguishes between ‘privileged belligerents’ and ‘unprivileged belligerents’, all we have to do is label those Tories and Republicans ‘unprivileged’. Lol. After, it's all arbitrary in the end, depending on what the Pentagon says.

So after an extraordinary amount of waffle you still failed to address the main points:

“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

I am not going to even respond to the left wing extremist in Veya, as he is a thick as shit.
This again has nothing to do with the freedom of press as nobody is being stopped from reporting. This is warning for people to not join the enemy's combat groups within combat zones for the hundredth tome

Here is a good example:

June 17 Update: AFP Corrects Regarding 17 'Journalists' Killed in Gaza
June 16 -- In an article today about a short video produced by the Israeli Foreign Ministry mocking journalists' coverage of the war last summer between Israel and Hamas, Agence France Presse parrots Palestinian propaganda about journalists killed in the fighting ("Israel ministry video lashes out at foreign journalists"):

Some 17 journalists were killed covering the July-August Gaza war. . .

The AFP does not attribute this claim to any source. The influential wire service does not inform readers that the figure is a Palestinian (Hamas) claim, disputed by Israel, which maintains that eight of the 17 were Hamas and Palestinian Islamic Jihad terror operatives or were journalists who worked for Hamas media.

According to the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center ("Examination of the Names of 17 Journalists and Media Personnel Whom the Palestinians Claim Were Killed in Operation Protective Edge," Feb. 11, 2015):

About a week after the end of Operation Protective Edge the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate issued a list of 17 names, allegedly of journalists who had been killed in [the summer 2014 Gaza] operation. The list was published by the PA's Wafa News Agency, which received it from the Hamas-controlled Gaza office of the ministry of information.

Among the Hamas operatives counted by the Palestinian sources as among the 17 journalists killed was Abdallah Fadel Mortaja, a military operative in the Shejaiya battalion of the Izz al-Din al-Qassam Brigades and a member of Hamas' "information office." In the YouTube clip below, he reads his last will in a Hamas produced video (uploaded Oct. 30, 2014).

UNESCO, which originally had identifed Murtaja as a "Palestinian journalist" in an Aug. 29 statement condemning his death, commendably followed up with this commendable Nov. 14, 2014 statement:

On 14 November, the Director-General of UNESCO, Irina Bokova, issued an update about the statement she issued on 29 August, 2014, regarding Abdullah Murtaja, in the context of UNESCO’s mandate to defend freedom of expression and press freedom.
The original statement issued on 29 August was in line with UNESCO’s policy of condemning all killings of journalists. During this week, information has been brought to the attention of UNESCO that Mr Murtaja was a member of an organized armed group -- an active combatant, and, therefore, not a civilian journalist. This has come to light in a video was posted recently on the Internet with Abdullah Murtaja speaking as a member of an organized armed group.
UNESCO therefore withdraws the statement of 29 August.
“I deplore attempts to instrumentalize the profession of journalists by combatants," declared Irina Bokova. “The civilian status of journalists is critical, especially in situations of conflict, to ensure the free flow of information and ideas that are essential to the wider public and the restoration of stability and peace,” declared the Director-General.

Other "journalists" included in the list of 17 and exposed as Palestinian combatants include Ezat Salameh Doheir (shown below wearing an Islamic Jihad cap and holding an M-16 rifle) and Suleiman Muhammad Marouf (his death notice, issued by Islamic Jihad, follows the image of Doheir, and identifies him as a "jihad fighter shaheed.")
Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’ - Page 2 17%20journalists%20Doheir

Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’ - Page 2 17%20journalists%20Doheir

Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’ - Page 2 17%20journalists%20Maroud

During the November 2012 conflict in Gaza, AFP steadfastly refused to retract a false Hamas propaganda claim which the agency had reported as fact, despite overwhelming evidence which prompted numerous other media outlets to correct.
CAMERA has asked AFP editors to publish a clarification making clear that though Hamas and the Palestinian Journalists Syndicate has asserted that 17 journalists were killed, their list includes the names of eight Hamas and Islamic Jihad combatants and operatives.
If AFP fails to issue a clarification, the quip by the apparently foreign journalist featured in the Israeli Foreign Ministry's video (below) criticizing media coverage -- "there are no terrorists here, just ordinary people" -- might have well been issued by the AFP bureau.

http://blog.camera.org/archives/2015/06/post_150.html

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:32 pm

Well, if it isn't limited at all, then it is a direct and absolute assault on freedom of speech. I thought you were defending the Pentagon.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:46 pm

Original Quill wrote:Well, if it isn't limited at all, then it is a direct and absolute assault on freedom of speech. I thought you were defending the Pentagon.

Gobbledygook, at no point is freedom of speech being denied.
You are just making things up now Quill

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:52 pm

Didge wrote:So I am not saying it is limited at all. Its not limited to desperate people as the only thing desperate is your reasoning.

Well, if it isn't limited at all, then it is a direct and absolute assault on freedom of speech. I thought you were defending the Pentagon.

The problem is creeping mission. One day we are labeling people "unprivileged belligerents" and the next day we are putting those people in Guantanamo, not arguing that they committed a crime but justifying the incarceration by simply saying they are 'unprivileged'. You have turned the tables, making them prove they are innocent rather than assumed innocent. Or, giving them no hearing whatsoever...as we see down in Guantanamo right now. Most of those internees have never even been charged with a crime.

We have these assaults on our fundamental rights in the name of defending ourselves. Eventually, we have eroded away all of our rights, and all we have left is an absolute military establishment that justifies itself by resort to fear. "We are here to protect you from those 'unprivileged belligerents' and by god we'll burn your house down to protect you!!!"

Ultimately, all that is happening is that an institution is trying to justify and fatten its own existence. Is that the way you want to live?

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 4:57 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:So I am not saying it is limited at all. Its not limited to desperate people as the only thing desperate is your reasoning.

Well, if it isn't limited at all, then it is a direct and absolute assault on freedom of speech. I thought you were defending the Pentagon.

The problem is creeping mission. One day we are labeling people "unprivileged belligerents" and the next day we are putting those people in Guantanamo, not arguing that they committed a crime but justifying the incarceration by simply saying they are 'unprivileged'. You have turned the tables, making them prove they are innocent rather than assumed innocent. Or, giving them no hearing whatsoever...as we see down in Guantanamo right now. Most of those internees have never even been charged with a crime.

We have these assaults on our fundamental rights in the name of defending ourselves. Eventually, we have eroded away all of our rights, and all we have left is an absolute military establishment that justifies itself by resort to fear. We are here to protect you from those 'unprivileged belligereants' and by god we'll burn your house down to protect you!!!

Ultimately, all that is happening is that an institution is trying to justify and fatten its own existence. Is that the way you want to live?

Again gobbledygook. at no part in this ruling does it state even those being detained would have speech denied to them. You are inventing a fallacy because your argument has fallen apart Quill.
News reporters can report what they like and again this only covers those traveling with enemy combat groups within combat zones. So to claim free speech is being denied or its attack on free speech is 100% complete rubbish.
Its very simple, soldiers have great difficult in combat as it is trying to differentiate between foe and civilian, where a news reporter just adds to the problem being as many have been killed through combat situations. Its a no brainier really. No where does it say they cannot report anything, it is advising against being with the enemy combat groups.
So your argument is complete nonsense.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:00 pm

Didge wrote:Again gobbledygook. at no part in this ruling does it state even those being detained would have speech denied to them. You are inventing a fallacy because your argument has fallen apart Quill.

What do you mean, in this ruling? The whole statement itself says that. That's what it stands for.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Again gobbledygook. at no part in this ruling does it state even those being detained would have speech denied to them. You are inventing a fallacy because your argument has fallen apart Quill.

What do you mean, in this ruling? The whole statement itself says that. That's what it stands for.

Its a ruling for soldiers, not the journalists themselves. They are free to do as they please the journalists, but it is clearly advising them that soldiers should not have to place their lives at risk and rightly so.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:05 pm

Didge wrote:News reporters can report what they like and again this only covers those traveling with enemy combat groups within combat zones. So to claim free speech is being denied or its attack on free speech is 100% complete rubbish.

What do you want to bet that it can cover anyone they want. It's a unilateral announcement of the rules they (US troops) will abide by. They can expand it whenever they want. After all, isn't this an expansion already?

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:06 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:News reporters can report what they like and again this only covers those traveling with enemy combat groups within combat zones. So to claim free speech is being denied or its attack on free speech is 100% complete rubbish.

What do you want to bet that it can cover anyone they want. It's a unilateral announcement of the rules they (US troops) will abide by. They can expand it whenever they want. After all, isn't this an expansion already?

A billion billion pounds.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:08 pm

Cuchulain wrote:
Original Quill wrote:

What do you mean, in this ruling? The whole statement itself says that. That's what it stands for.

Its a ruling for soldiers, not the journalists themselves. They are free to do as they please the journalists, but it is clearly advising them that soldiers should not have to place their lives at risk and rightly so.

That's ot the point, didge. The soldiers have the guns. The reporters do not. It's a statement of rules whereby they will shoot and kill you. No one is free if s/he faces execution.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:12 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Cuchulain wrote:

Its a ruling for soldiers, not the journalists themselves. They are free to do as they please the journalists, but it is clearly advising them that soldiers should not have to place their lives at risk and rightly so.

That's ot the point, didge. The soldiers have the guns. The reporters do not. It's a statement of rules whereby they will shoot and kill you. No one is free if s/he faces execution.

The point is first and foremost the soldiers lives.
The news-reporters place themselves into the conflict of war, which you neglect at every time.
Soldiers face being killed all the time, so that is yet again absurd reasoning to say execution.
The news reporters have to face and except the risks of placing themselves into these situations.

What you fail to understand at every turn is what difficult decisions you place on those actually fighting these wars.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:14 pm

Didge wrote:Its very simple, soldiers have great difficult in combat as it is trying to differentiate between foe and civilian, where a news reporter just adds to the problem being as many have been killed through combat situations. Its a no brainier really. No where does it say they cannot report anything, it is advising against being with the enemy combat groups.

Simple? It reverses the burden of proof; do you think that is simple?

It outlaws freedom of the press, but describes the triggering element as association. You forget that the Founders of the Constitution already thought of that. The First Amendment covers freedom of association too.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:15 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:Its very simple, soldiers have great difficult in combat as it is trying to differentiate between foe and civilian, where a news reporter just adds to the problem being as many have been killed through combat situations. Its a no brainier really. No where does it say they cannot report anything, it is advising against being with the enemy combat groups.

Simple? It reverses the burden of proof; do you think that is simple?

It outlaws freedom of the press, but describes the triggering element as association. You forget that the Founders of the Constitution already thought of that. The First Amendment covers freedom of association too.

No it does not outlaw the freedom of press, how many times are you going to claim the same drivel?
The press are still free to do as they please. This is rules for soldiers in combat.
So your claim to freedom of press is sheer and utter bollocks

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:19 pm

Didge wrote:The point is first and foremost the soldiers lives.

That's just an excuse, didge. If they were worried about the soldiers lives, they wouldn't put them in the field, exposing them to gunfire, in the cause of somebody else's fight.

The point is the justification and expansion of power to the institution.

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:22 pm

Original Quill wrote:
Didge wrote:The point is first and foremost the soldiers lives.

That's just an excuse, didge. If they were worried about the soldiers lives, they wouldn't put them in the field, exposing them to gunfire, in the cause of somebody else's fight.

The point is the justification and expansion of power to the institution.

You think the safety of soldiers lives is an excuse now.
Why not go and tell that to those who face these difficulties in combat which you have failed to grasp in the entire debate.
You are just repeating the same invented incorrect claims and I am bored now.
News reporters place themselves at risk at their choosing, which creates further problems for soldiers they should not have to deal with.
So you can talk to yourself now Quill on this topic, but nothing you said has any relevance here and misses every single point.

Cheers

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:28 pm

didge wrote:The news reporters have to face and except the risks of placing themselves into these situations.

And they do everyday. But that's not really what we are talking about, is it? We are talking about expansion of the Pentagon to use deadly force unnecessarily.

By your reasoning we should not cry at the funerals of dead soldiers, right? After all, they asked for it, and now they must "face and accept the risks".

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:34 pm

Didge wrote:You think the safety of soldiers lives is an excuse now.
Why not go and tell that to those who face these difficulties in combat which you have failed to grasp in the entire debate.

You are not concerned about the soldiers, didge. Don't give me your faux tears.

We are discussing the expansion of an institution's power, to include execution of people who write and speak, and don't shoot guns. At best, that power is for frivolous reasons, and inevitably deadly.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:48 pm

Didge wrote:News reporters place themselves at risk at their choosing, which creates further problems for soldiers they should not have to deal with.

So do medics. The Pentagon's announcements now opens up the field to a whole host of noncombatants. It's the oldest quid pro quo in history: you start shooting my noncombatants, I'll start shooting your noncombatants.

But what is worse...what you are sacrificing is the underlying function, whether it is medical care or information. Sacrificing information serves two functions for the Pentagon: it widens the power of the institution, in legitimizing the murder of those not engaged in hostilities; and it facilitates the cover up function. And that's really what it's all about.

Just as southern policemen could kill more blacks if they didn't have those damn cameras filming them, so the soldiers could commit a lot more atrocities if they could just kill the persons who are filming them. The Pentagon's purpose isn't just to rid them of a complication and give them a clear shot at the enemy; their purpose is to rid them of the inconvenience of someone telling on them. After all, that's what the press does.

by Original Quill Tue Jun 30, 2015 5:50 pm

Didge wrote:So you can talk to yourself now Quill on this topic, but nothing you said has any relevance here and misses every single point.

Cheers.

.

Meh...you'll be back.

Cheers. Laughing

by Guest Tue Jun 30, 2015 6:10 pm

Medics?

Oh my:

Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’ - Page 2 Norwegian_medics

Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’ - Page 2 Medic_1529375c

Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’ - Page 2 157199

What stands out on all of them?

Like I say the argument has been exhausted going around in circles

by Original Quill Wed Jul 01, 2015 6:28 am

Didge wrote:What stands out on all of them?

The green fatigues. Living in a city you don't see those everyday.

In my lifetime there are two things that I detest seeing. One is professional fighting. The other are war scenes. Both represent unnecessary misery. Both are cheap thrills for misguided souls.

by veya_victaous Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:48 am

by Original Quill Thu Jul 02, 2015 7:34 pm

by Guest Thu Jul 02, 2015 7:40 pm

Original Quill wrote:

Pentagon Legalizes Killing Journalists As ‘Law Of War’ - Page 2 Soldiers-and-prisoners

by Original Quill Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:02 pm

by Guest Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:04 pm

by Original Quill Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:12 pm

by Guest Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:12 pm

by Original Quill Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:15 pm

by Guest Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:16 pm

by Original Quill Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:20 pm

by Guest Thu Jul 02, 2015 8:21 pm

by veya_victaous Fri Jul 03, 2015 3:28 am

by Guest Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:11 am

Someone is utterly dense in regards to history

Nazi Germany was built on a claim to lands lost, the Versailles treaty,nationalism, and hatred of the Jews.

National security?
Where did you learn your history Veya?
A comic book?

Fucking extreme lefties are utterly clueless

by veya_victaous Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:10 am

umm why do you keep attributing popular sentiment to me
I didn't make it dumb ass

And yes You love Nazi's, You have Proven in Multiple thread how you would vote for Hitler if it was advertised to you correctly, Because this is Just as bad and you happy to vote for ending free press if it gives you the impression (no matter how false) of security.

I do not give the slightest shit about your opinion Because that is what Wise men like Ben Franklin said is the best thing to do with a coward's opinion. Ignore it Cause if push comes to shove You aint going to do shit. You opinion is worthless because you are a bad person.
No good man would ever suggest ending free press in ANY circumstance.

by veya_victaous Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:24 am

National Security Sounds like Nazi Germany Cause they BOTH are the EVIL that Fucking retard short sighted cowards fucks VOTE FOR !!!!

by Guest Fri Jul 03, 2015 8:50 am

veya_victaous wrote:umm why do you keep attributing popular sentiment to me
I didn't make it dumb ass

And yes You love Nazi's, You have Proven in Multiple thread how you would vote for Hitler if it was advertised to you correctly, Because this is Just as bad and you happy to vote for ending free press if it gives you the impression (no matter how false) of security.

I do not give the slightest shit about your opinion Because that is what Wise men like Ben Franklin said is the best thing to do with a coward's opinion. Ignore it Cause if push comes to shove You aint going to do shit. You opinion is worthless because you are a bad person.
No good man would ever suggest ending free press in ANY circumstance.

No I do not love the nazi's you cardboard cutout.
You have proved nothing aprat from the fact you are an unhinged loon
I am correcting your ignorance on history get used to that and you posted th poster because you are that stupid.

by Original Quill Fri Jul 03, 2015 4:52 pm

Ok, didge. You have given up. The arguments were a bit frayed at the edges for you, anyway.

But, to recap;

OP wrote: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.

Now first, this is a unilateral statement coming from the largest military in the world. It has no other authority over it, and seeks none. It does not argue that these members of the press are combatants; as a policy statement it is an open declaration that it will deem members of the adversary's press to be the equivalent of a combatant. Stripped of all tomfoolery, it is a simple statement of who it will shoot on sight

Second, it is a statement of its intention to shoot and kill members of the press, who legally operate under the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Ergo: It is as statement by the largest military in the world about how it will refuse to abide by the US Constitution.

Third, it offers no justification for its position. In other words, it doesn't claim that members of the press are engaging in military action toward the US military. Indeed, members of the press by definition write news stories. Ergo: it is a statement by the largest military in the world that it will kill those who accompany the adversary and write news stories about military engagements.

So, this is a declaration that the US military will not abide by the US Constitution, and will kill people for writing news stories that run contrary to its interests. In other words, this is merely a story about how the US military intends to suppress freedom of information, and flaunt the US Constitution in doing so.

by Guest Fri Jul 03, 2015 5:20 pm

Original Quill wrote:Ok, didge. You have given up. The arguments were a bit frayed at the edges for you, anyway.

But, to recap;

OP wrote: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.

Now first, this is a unilateral statement coming from the largest military in the world. It has no other authority over it, and seeks none. It does not argue that these members of the press are combatants; as a policy statement it is an open declaration that it will deem members of the adversary's press to be the equivalent of a combatant. Stripped of all tomfoolery, it is a simple statement of who it will shoot on sight

Second, it is a statement of its intention to shoot and kill members of the press, who legally operate under the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Ergo: It is as statement by the largest military in the world about how it will refuse to abide by the US Constitution.

Third, it offers no justification for its position. In other words, it doesn't claim that members of the press are engaging in military action toward the US military. Indeed, members of the press by definition write news stories. Ergo: it is a statement by the largest military in the world that it will kill those who accompany the adversary and write news stories about military engagements.

So, this is a declaration that the US military will not abide by the US Constitution, and will kill people for writing news stories that run contrary to its interests. In other words, this is merely a story about how the US military intends to suppress freedom of information, and flaunt the US Constitution in doing so.

Have to say +100 (faints) lol

by Guest Fri Jul 03, 2015 6:02 pm

Original Quill wrote:Ok, didge. You have given up. The arguments were a bit frayed at the edges for you, anyway.

But, to recap;

OP wrote: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.

Now first, this is a unilateral statement coming from the largest military in the world. It has no other authority over it, and seeks none. It does not argue that these members of the press are combatants; as a policy statement it is an open declaration that it will deem members of the adversary's press to be the equivalent of a combatant. Stripped of all tomfoolery, it is a simple statement of who it will shoot on sight

Second, it is a statement of its intention to shoot and kill members of the press, who legally operate under the freedom of speech provision of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Ergo: It is as statement by the largest military in the world about how it will refuse to abide by the US Constitution.

Third, it offers no justification for its position. In other words, it doesn't claim that members of the press are engaging in military action toward the US military. Indeed, members of the press by definition write news stories. Ergo: it is a statement by the largest military in the world that it will kill those who accompany the adversary and write news stories about military engagements.

So, this is a declaration that the US military will not abide by the US Constitution, and will kill people for writing news stories that run contrary to its interests. In other words, this is merely a story about how the US military intends to suppress freedom of information, and flaunt the US Constitution in doing so.

Wrong again, its the intention to kill insurgents:

“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.”

I highlighted the important part for you and its not even an execution order but soldiers can detain those claiming to be journalists, or not withhold fire and not to put their guard down. It is the most natural and rational thing to do where you have a present different enemy groups using this tactic. Again a soldiers own safety is paramount. AS seen I showed you proof that many Palestinians claimed by Hamas to be journalists killed, were actually terrorists. The journalist has to recognize they are in a different conflict zone where the extremists are not abiding by any rules. An enemy that cares not about their own lives and seek the thrill of martyrdom does not play by any rules and in fact plays on the allied rules, to the insurgents advantage, the point you miss. What you have not done is weighed the cost either side. Which is the more balanced need? That would be the soldier, as it's his end zone, the field of combat, not the journalists. They place themselves with unnecessary risk. With also those insurgents claiming to be journalists, it places the soldiers most at risk. You never weighed up the balance and it will never be in your favour. The

Anyway we have been over your points and no freedom has been lost or freedom of press lost.

by Original Quill Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:13 pm

It's complete semantics, didge. I'm surprised you of all people fall for this.

“Journalists are the new consultant. Anyone can claim to be one.” That states it pretty clearly. Nor is it any comfort that they later specify foreign journalists; what...are they going to stop and check IDs? The qualification of foreign, if it is even legal, is mere semantics.

"...because a politician told them." I think you see the light shining through. The adversary is not the other military, but "politicians" (spit the words out, contemptuously) voicing our own US Constitution and those who want to abide by it. The US Constitution is the enemy of "the American Serviceman."

“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.

So the US Constitution does not exist, because the manual is not law??? Like that logic? Well, perhaps it can't be unlawful if the manual is not law, but killing people is still unlawful. Escape by verbiage does not cut it when all we have to do is look at the facts: the US military wants to suppress information.

Indeed, the article itself feels the pressing need to dance away from the difficulties this implies:

OP wrote:“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.”

Or, they may not be. The point behind the rule is: "We don't give a fuck!" Again, look at the facts, not at the silver-tongued words.

This is a blatant statement that we will kill whomever we want. Again..."we do not think that there is any legal significance." Oh, and we believe in unicorns and other irrelevant beings.

Equally troubling, is the slippery-slope aspect of the argument. Read the above passages, only this time drop the word "foreign" from the passages. You quickly realize what is at issue here: journalism. This rule is one step away from a statement of intention should the American journalist get in the way.

Anyone who would draft such a rule is an authoritarian of the first order, and would not be troubled by a slight twist of the meaning anyway. He issues bullets, and offers only verbiage in his defense. Most professionals--they are spitefully called politicians in the article--would see right through this. It's curious that you do not, didge.

by Guest Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:16 pm

Still not weighing up the balance here on life Quill.

You keep making many assumptions and views on politics, but this is first and foremost about the soldier.

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

by Original Quill Fri Jul 03, 2015 7:33 pm

Cuchulain wrote:Still not weighing up the balance here on life Quill.

You keep making many assumptions and views on politics, but this is first and foremost about the soldier.

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

Well, instinctively my first question is: What is the soldier doing there, anyway? If they are defending the homeland--say a landing in Oregon or Massachusetts--that's one thing. But if they are in a foreign territory, involved in political activities--and they want to suppress freedom of the press--I think their new rule is out of bounds.

Behind this rule is the Pentagon's recognition that the fight in the Middle East is a PR battle most of all. All this new rule says is, We want to shut them the fuck up! They are dealing with political issues, not military matters. The soldier is being turned into the politician. That's what they pretend to despise.

A soldier who is fighting the information battle, in that way, is an unworthy assassin.

by Sponsored content