NationStates Jolt Archive

And Here it is (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050409%2F0448225520.htm&sc=1107&photoid=20050408BAG103&ewp=ewp_news_iraq2&floc=NW_1-T)

U.S. Military Detains Cameraman in Iraq



BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - A cameraman carrying CBS press credentials was detained in Iraq earlier this week on suspicion of insurgent activity, the U.S. military said Friday, while the network issued a statement saying it was investigating the incident.

The cameraman suffered minor injuries Tuesday during a battle between U.S. soldiers and suspected insurgents, and was standing next to an alleged insurgent who was killed during the shootout, the military said.

The military issued a statement at the time saying the cameraman was shot because his equipment was mistaken for a weapon. But on Friday, the military said the cameraman was detained because there was probable cause to believe he posed ``an imperative threat to coalition forces.''

``He is currently detained and will be processed as any other security detainee,'' the military said.

In a statement released Friday, CBS News said the man had worked as a freelancer for CBS for three months and that he was videotaping for the network when he was shot.


``It is common practice in Iraq for Western news organizations to hire local cameramen in places considered too dangerous for Westerners to work effectively. The very nature of their work often puts them in the middle of very volatile situations,'' the statement said.


``CBS News continues to investigate the situation, and when more information becomes available, we will report it.''

04/09/05 04:48
© Copyright The Associated Press. All rights reserved. The information contained In this news report may not be published, broadcast or otherwise distributed without the prior written authority of The Associated Press.

Okay, so the guy was a local working for CBS because its a (as my dad once put it) 'no-gringo' zone. He standing next to an insurgent. The US military rolls in, firefight ensues, guy gets some minor wounds (what exactly do they mean by minor?), cameraman arrested for 'insurgent activities'.

Well, thats appropriatly vague. Is the military just going to start arresting people they don't like and charge them on 'insurgent activities' ? (Gitmo). The guy, for all we know, may have been talking with the insurgent, could be preforming and interview, could have been doing a million things besides these so called 'insurgent activities'.

The military basically gave themselves a blank check to make the guy 'dissapear'.

Is this what the USAPA is allowing? Arrest of people without a verifiable charge?

Interviewing a dead insurgent? That had to be interesting

And Here it is (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050409%2F0448225520.htm&sc=1107&photoid=20050408BAG103&ewp=ewp_news_iraq2&floc=NW_1-T)


Okay, so the guy was a local working for CBS because its a (as my dad once put it) 'no-gringo' zone. He standing next to an insurgent. The US military rolls in, firefight ensues, guy gets some minor wounds (what exactly do they mean by minor?), cameraman arrested for 'insurgent activities'.

Well, thats appropriatly vague. Is the military just going to start arresting people they don't like and charge them on 'insurgent activities' ? (Gitmo). The guy, for all we know, may have been talking with the insurgent, could be preforming and interview, could have been doing a million things besides these so called 'insurgent activities'.

The military basically gave themselves a blank check to make the guy 'dissapear'.

Is this what the USAPA is allowing? Arrest of people without a verifiable charge?

Pfft. I hate this idea that people like Rather and those who work at CBS are 'Liberal'. I remember Rather in the 1980's when he used to parrot the pronouncements of the Reagan administration like a good soldier. He never once brought up the issue of The Reagan Admins massive human rights abuses in Latin America when talking about Reagan's attacks on Gorbachev and the SU's Human Rights abuses.

And Here it is (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20050409%2F0448225520.htm&sc=1107&photoid=20050408BAG103&ewp=ewp_news_iraq2&floc=NW_1-T)


Okay, so the guy was a local working for CBS because its a (as my dad once put it) 'no-gringo' zone. He standing next to an insurgent. The US military rolls in, firefight ensues, guy gets some minor wounds (what exactly do they mean by minor?), cameraman arrested for 'insurgent activities'.

Well, thats appropriatly vague. Is the military just going to start arresting people they don't like and charge them on 'insurgent activities' ? (Gitmo). The guy, for all we know, may have been talking with the insurgent, could be preforming and interview, could have been doing a million things besides these so called 'insurgent activities'.

The military basically gave themselves a blank check to make the guy 'dissapear'.

Is this what the USAPA is allowing? Arrest of people without a verifiable charge?
Yes Yayyyy! Arrest 'em. Arrest 'em all! Mwahahahahahaha! :D

"You have just been ERASED."

I think the US military should just tell them all, "Hey, you want to report from a combat zone, be our guest. Just keep in mind that we will not restrain our operations simply because you're there. You get shot, tough!" :D

Habeas corpus is non-existent as far as the US is concerned, apparently.

I think the US military should just tell them all, "Hey, you want to report from a combat zone, be our guest. Just keep in mind that we will not restrain our operations simply because you're there. You get shot, tough!" :D

Yeah, it would suit the US military to supress information about their activity, as they do indeed have things to hide, as has been proven time and time again.

Yeah, it would suit the US military to supress information about their activity, as they do indeed have things to hide, as has been proven time and time again.

Erm, there's no grounds for targeting journalists, but there's no grounds for holding fire because some might be in the area either. Unlike many others, they know the risks of going there, and they go of their own volition.

Erm, there's no grounds for targeting journalists, but there's no grounds for holding fire because some might be in the area either. Unlike many others, they know the risks of going there, and they go of their own volition.

I think the issue is less that he got hit with fire (because they are doing a job out there, and it's a dangerous one), and more that he got arrested for reporting on the war. It's the effort to control information and the public perception of the war that's the scary thing. If we don't show interviews with the other side, they're not humans-- they're cockroaches, and much easier to stomp on. You start humanizing the enemy, and you lose support for the war.

And the current administration fears that in its gut. So out goes the free press! In comes the propaganda!

Yeah, it would suit the US military to supress information about their activity, as they do indeed have things to hide, as has been proven time and time again.
"You remind me of a wild Hickory nut." - Euel Gibbons

Everyone should watch the movie "Control Room" the about the experiences of Al-Jazeera, and other news organizations in the Iraq war, if you really want to see what it is like to be an unembedded reporter in Iraq. It is one of the best war documentaries I have ever seen. In one scene you see a camera man at the Al-Jazeera HQ in baghdad video taping an A-10 launching missiles at the Al-Jazeera buidling right before he is killed.

In a single day of the war US warplanes bombed the Al-Jazeera buidling, the Abu Daubi TV station, and the Palestine Hotel, where the western jounralists were staying killing journalists at all three locations. Especially after seeing later events like the shooting of the Italian Journalist, there is no longer any doubt in my mind, that the US military is waging a war of targeted killings and intimidation of journalists who show anything less than 100 percent support for the war and who are embedded with military units. There simply can't be that many conicidences.

"You remind me of a wild Hickory nut." - Euel Gibbons

Yeah, Eutrusca, we know that you were probably around when that was said, but if you are referring to "Euell Gibbons", the expert on wild edible plants, his name is spelled with a double "l".

The quote, as is usual, doesn't really make it as a responce, though.

I think the US military should just tell them all, "Hey, you want to report from a combat zone, be our guest. Just keep in mind that we will not restrain our operations simply because you're there. You get shot, tough!" :D
I agree. The media thinks they have special rights in the middle of a war but it's not anyone elses problem if they get killed in the center of a firefight. If they value their life, why the hell are they there?!?

I agree. The media thinks they have special rights in the middle of a war but it's not anyone elses problem if they get killed in the center of a firefight. If they value their life, why the hell are they there?!?

International humanitarian law does afford journalists working in war zones special rights and protections. (http://www.reseau-damocles.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=413)

International humanitarian law does afford journalists working in war zones special rights and protections.
If it were up to me, I wouldn't give them jack.

Habeas corpus is non-existent as far as the US is concerned, apparently.

They guy was Iraqi, not an American.

International humanitarian law does afford journalists working in war zones special rights and protections. (http://www.reseau-damocles.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=413)

Not if they are in the middle of an insurgency. You get shot, its wrong place wrong time!

If it were up to me, I wouldn't give them jack.

seconded.

Also, this person could possibly be linked to terror due to the evidence of the Camera he had. Its being investigated. If he's innocent, he'll be let go. If not...

Not if they are in the middle of an insurgency. You get shot, its wrong place wrong time!

Actually, no. Journalists are defined as civilians, and all the rules that apply to attacks on civilians apply to journalists. No, the US may not follow them, but that is another matter.

They guy was Iraqi, not an American.

The Human Rights charter applies to non-Americans as well, you know. There is a thing called international law. No, the US may not follow it, but that is another matter.

Actually, no. Journalists are defined as civilians, and all the rules that apply to attacks on civilians apply to journalists. No, the US may not follow them, but that is another matter.
What kind of civilian would wander out with heavy machinery into a war?

Actually, no. Journalists are defined as civilians, and all the rules that apply to attacks on civilians apply to journalists. No, the US may not follow them, but that is another matter.

Yep but when they are in the middle of something and get shot, alwell.

What kind of civilian would wander out with heavy machinery into a war?

What part of "special rights and protections afforded the press" did you not understand?

The Human Rights charter applies to non-Americans as well, you know. There is a thing called international law. No, the US may not follow it, but that is another matter.

Don't get me started on International Law. I know more about it than you do Fass.

Yep but when they are in the middle of something and get shot, alwell.

Actually, no, shooting civilians simply because "they're in the way" is not allowed.

What part of "special rights and protections afforded the press" did you not understand?

How many journalists have been killed by both sides of the war? Several.

Actually, no, shooting civilians simply because "they're in the way" is not allowed.

ITS WAR!!!!!!

What part of "special rights and protections afforded the press" did you not understand?
That gives them immunity to stray bullets?

Don't get me started on International Law. I know more about it than you do Fass.

Sure, that's why you can apologise US non-compliance with it, I suppose.

ITS WAR!!!!!!

That was not an excuse in Nürnberg, and it's not an excuse here.

Sure, that's why you can apologise US non-compliance with it, I suppose.

Sorry. We've abided by international law.

That gives them immunity to stray bullets?

Yeah, sure, the bullets would be "stray". :rolleyes:

That was not an excuse in Nürnberg, and it's not an excuse here.

Nuremburg is something totally different.

You have no clue as to what your talking about. In war, people die in cross fire be it civilian or journalist.

Yeah, sure, the bullets would be "stray". :rolleyes:

This statement just proves your incompetent.

Sorry. We've abided by international law.

Tell that to Amnesty International, those in Abu-Ghurayb and those in Guanatanamo Bay. (No, that you've invented special monikers for them such as "'illegal' combattant" does not fool anyone.)

What part of "special rights and protections afforded the press" did you not understand?

Do you think you could perhaps try debating without attacking other people's intelligences?

Yeah, sure, the bullets would be "stray". :rolleyes:

Do you have some sort of proof that the soldiers were firing intentionally on the cameraman?

Nuremburg is something totally different.

You have no clue as to what your talking about. In war, people die in cross fire be it civilian or journalist.

Civilians are to be warned before an attack on where they can be expected to be, journalists as well. "It's war" is not excuse for doing whatever you want because it's war. "War crimes", anyone?

Tell that to Amnesty International, those in Abu-Ghurayb and those in Guanatanamo Bay. (No, that you've invented special monikers for them such as "'illegal' combattant" does not fool anyone.)

I suggest you read up on a thing called the Geneva Conventions regarding what constitutes a soldier.

You have to be part of a National Army or a militia with insignia shown. Any soldier that doesn't have an insignia somewhere on their "uniform" isn't protected under the Geneva Convention.

As for Abu Grahib, the people responsible are being punished as we speak. Some have already been tossed into the brig and discharged from the military dishonorably.

Do you think you could perhaps try debating without attacking other people's intelligences?

That was a serious question, which cannot be construed as an attack on anyone's intelligence.

Do you have some sort of proof that the soldiers were firing intentionally on the cameraman?

Actually, the military mistook his camera for a weapon so they did shoot at him.

This statement just proves your incompetent.

Coming from someone who can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're," that just sounds a bit hollow.

Civilians are to be warned before an attack on where they can be expected to be, journalists as well. "It's war" is not excuse for doing whatever you want because it's war. "War crimes", anyone?

HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

If someone is firing at me, I don't care who is in the way, I would shoot at the people firing at me and if a journalist is shot, alwell. He shouldn't have poked his up.

Well I'm gonna get off for a while so in conclusion - The incident was not the fault of the soldiers and I believe the media has no place in the battlefield.

Coming from someone who can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're," that just sounds a bit hollow.
Not attacking intelligence, you say? ;)

Coming from someone who can't tell the difference between "your" and "you're," that just sounds a bit hollow.

Oh excuse the hell out of me. You don't know anything about what you are talking about anyway, so your criticism of me falls short.

I suggest you read up on a thing called the Geneva Conventions regarding what constitutes a soldier.

You have to be part of a National Army or a militia with insignia shown. Any soldier that doesn't have an insignia somewhere on their "uniform" isn't protected under the Geneva Convention.

The Geneva Convention is not the only thing that applies. The right to a fair trial and what is commonly called "habeas corpus" is a human right according to the declaration of, just that, human rights. Even your own justice system has started to recognise the rights of those in Guanatanamo Bay, and several of those held for years without charges or right to a trial have launched lawsuits against the US.

You will yet see that your behaviour in these past years has been anything but legal.

As for Abu Grahib, the people responsible are being punished as we speak. Some have already been tossed into the brig and discharged from the military dishonorably.

Yeah, right. Those responsible have been left untouched, while everything has been blamed on those lower in the chain of command. The responce to it was also horribly slow, with Amnesty reporting on US human rights violations for months before any wrongdoing was semi-admitted.

That was a serious question, which cannot be construed as an attack on anyone's intelligence.

Don't act coy; it was most certainly a veiled attack at the reading comprehension skills of Dakhistan.

What part of "special rights and protections afforded the press" did you not understand?

It can easily be construed as an attack on her intelligence, by virtue of the fact that I instantly construed it as such. You aren't fooling anyone into thinking that you weren't deliberately insulting her. Learn something from Urantia II and his three-week forum ban: this kind of veiled assault on other posters, cleverly disguised as "legitimate questions", is not easily tolerated.

Not attacking intelligence, you say? ;)

Well, when mine is attacked ("incompetent"), I return the favour.

Not only was he wounded standing next to a terrorist, his video camera contained footage of several roadside bomb attacks on U.S. troops. Obviously, he was working with the terrorists and using his CBS credentials as a cover.

If he hadn't been standing so close to terrorists he wouldn't have been found out.

Well, when mine is attacked ("incompetent"), I return the favour.

Well, you are when it comes to international law.

Well, you are when it comes to international law.

Oh, seriously, grow up. This childish schoolyard taunting ("Nuh-uh, you're a poopyhead") is really unbecoming.

It can easily be construed as an attack on her intelligence, by virtue of the fact that I instantly construed it as such. You aren't fooling anyone into thinking that you weren't deliberately insulting her. Learn something from Urantia II and his three-week forum ban: this kind of veiled assault on other posters, cleverly disguised as "legitimate questions", is not easily tolerated.

Report it if you will. I know what I meant by it and I stand by it. His question was indicative of not having read what I wrote, and I asked what it was he failed to understand.

What, claiming that he did not understand what I wrote is now an attack? Well I claim that you did neither.

Not only was he wounded standing next to a terrorist, his video camera contained footage of several roadside bomb attacks on U.S. troops. Obviously, he was working with the terrorists and using his CBS credentials as a cover.

If he hadn't been standing so close to terrorists he wouldn't have been found out.

Finally! Someone that knows what people have been saying. You truely are a marval on the forums! :)

Oh, seriously, grow up. This childish schoolyard taunting ("Nuh-uh, you're a poopyhead") is really unbecoming.

Sorry!

I just don't like people spouting they know something when infact, they don't.

To be sure, there is a problem with the limitation on access to information out of the warzone. It is also true to say that these restricts are a deliberate and orchestrated attempt to limit the information available to the general world public and, thereby, to control the impression create by the conflict.

This was the result, of course, of the lesson we learned here in the U.S. following war coverage in Vietnam. Can anyone expect honest, unfiltered press after that? I don't say this to justify censorship; I wholeheartedly condemn it. This is, however, the monster we gave birth to by allowing the government to begin controlling the press during wartime.

By the way, how many of you are participating in the Global Treasure Hunt? Check the region of Treasure Island for details.

Report it if you will. I know what I meant by it and I stand by it. His question was indicative of not having read what I wrote, and I asked what it was he failed to understand.

What, claiming that he did not understand what I wrote is now an attack? Well I claim that you did neither.
she* :D

she* :D

Was Fass referring to me or to you Dakhistan?

Originally Posted by HUNT MASTER
To be sure, there is a problem with the limitation on access to information out of the warzone. It is also true to say that these restricts are a deliberate and orchestrated attempt to limit the information available to the general world public and, thereby, to control the impression create by the conflict.

This was the result, of course, of the lesson we learned here in the U.S. following war coverage in Vietnam. Can anyone expect honest, unfiltered press after that? I don't say this to justify censorship; I wholeheartedly condemn it. This is, however, the monster we gave birth to by allowing the government to begin controlling the press during wartime.

And following from that, as well as Salamae's earlier comment, consider this. What would have happened in World War Two if we'd had this kind of media coverage and freedom of the press? Certainly, if the Axis powers had it, (as if their leaders would have allowed it) they might have been somewhat less willing to fight. On the other hand, the Allies (with the exception of besieged Britain, who was directly threatened), might have suffered serious drops in morale, and eventually not made the move from defensive to offensive fighting. No doubt a Chamberlain-clone would be brought in, and the Nazi's would agree not to cross the Atlantic or the Russian border, as long as they could keep Europe. The rest, you can imagine.

Was Fass referring to me or to you Dakhistan?

Dakhistan, I would imagine, because that's who my first comment was regarding. Notice how I was awesome and knew Dakhistan was a girl.

she* :D

It's is unfortunate that English lacks gender neutral pronouns for persons. "His" and "he" and "him" are the closest it has. Tough luck.

Originally Posted by Fass
It's is unfortunate that English lacks gender neutral pronouns for persons. "His" and "he" and "him" are the closest it has. Tough luck.

Yes, and I think it is about time that the growing internet culture develops a new English pronoun that is gender-neutral, as the distinction keeps causing problems. Anyway, I beg all of you to try and segue back to the original topic of the thread. Just do what Sdaeriji says and no one will get hurt. ;)

Erm, there's no grounds for targeting journalists, but there's no grounds for holding fire because some might be in the area either. Unlike many others, they know the risks of going there, and they go of their own volition.

Actually being shot isn't the problem, but being arrested for doing his job is the problem.

No where is it written, you will be arrested if you stand by an insurgent. I mean being shot accidently makes sense, but not arrested.

Actually being shot isn't the problem, but being arrested for doing his job is the problem.

No where is it written, you will be arrested if you stand by an insurgent. I mean being shot accidently makes sense, but not arrested.

He wouldn't have been arrested except for the pictures on his camera. They are investigating him. If he is innocent, he'll be let go. If he's guilty.....

Sorry. We've abided by international law.Guantamo, AbuGrail, etc

Guantamo, AbuGrail, etc

Abu Grahab is being taken care of! Guantanamo doesn't violate international law since the people there aren't part of a national military nor were they wearing marking of a militia.

...If he is innocent, he'll be let go...tell that to the POWs at Guantanamo.

Heh, have you heard that the reporters who broke the Valerie Plame story (http://www.ospolitics.org/usa/archives/2003/09/02/the_valeri.php) might go to jail?

Yeah... freedom of the press is fine unless it's politically inconvenient.

...Guantanamo doesn't violate international law ...thats what the Gov say.

So if we're breaking the international law, does that mean that the international policemen have to arrest themselves?

So if we're breaking the international law, does that mean that the international policemen have to arrest themselves?

http://www.webwombat.com.au/entertainment/movies/images/world-police-1.JPG

I suggest you read up on a thing called the Geneva Conventions regarding what constitutes a soldier.

You have to be part of a National Army or a militia with insignia shown. Any soldier that doesn't have an insignia somewhere on their "uniform" isn't protected under the Geneva Convention.

As for Abu Grahib, the people responsible are being punished as we speak. Some have already been tossed into the brig and discharged from the military dishonorably.

Wrongo, bubba...

Geneva Convention Article 4, section 6. Applies it to resistance cells of an invaded country as well.

There are several sections to the Convention, and several sub-sections towards what constitutes the Defintion of a "prisoner of war". Article 4 defines "Prisoners of War"

Subsection 1 defines proper military units of parties in conflict.

subsection 2 defines organized militia (the definition you suppled)

subsection 3 defines units who swear authority to a government not recognized by the detaining power.

subsection 4 defines civilians accompanying units covered in 1,2 & 3.

subsection 5 defines civilians or military, the merchant marines aboard any civilian vessels.

subsection 6 defines unorganized resistance cells.

All of them are classified under the protections of Prisoners of War.

So, it is you who need to read the Document.

That gives them immunity to stray bullets?

If the journalists in question happened to be Clark Kent and Peter Parker... then YES.

I think the US military should just tell them all, "Hey, you want to report from a combat zone, be our guest. Just keep in mind that we will not restrain our operations simply because you're there. You get shot, tough!" :D
Doesnt' mean he should be arrested for filming a fight.