NationStates Jolt Archive

A media watchdog group is urging President Barack Obama to end the U.S. military's practice of detaining journalists without charges, and has asked for a full investigation into killings of journalists by U.S. military forces.

Officials with the Committee to Protect Journalists said Tuesday the detention of journalists without trial by U.S. authorities in such countries as Iraq has emboldened other countries to do the same.

Paul Steiger, the group's chairman, announced he sent a letter to Obama's transition team last month. The letter said 14 journalists have been held without due process for long periods in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantanamo.

He also said 16 journalists have been killed by U.S. fire in Iraq since 2003.

(The above is quoted from this AP report (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/02-10-2009/20090210083505_01.html)).

Here is a copy of the actual letter to Obama from the Committee to Protect Journalists:

CPJ urges Obama to assert U.S. leadership on press freedom (http://cpj.org/2009/01/cpj-urges-obama-to-re-establish-us-as-press-freedo.php)
Presidential Transition Team
Washington, D.C. 20270
January 12, 2009

Dear President-elect Obama:

I am writing as chairman of the Committee to Protect Journalists to seek your leadership in reaffirming America's role as a staunch defender of press freedom throughout the world. Journalists in many countries who risk their lives and liberty upholding the values of free expression look to the United States for support.

To assert moral authority we must first put our own house in order. I urge you to make it a priority to end the U.S. military's practice of open-ended detention of journalists and media support workers, and to investigate fully the deaths of journalists from U.S. forces' fire.

The detention without trial of journalists has reduced U.S. standing in the world and may have contributed to the overall global increase in jailed journalists by emboldening the many tyrants who look for pretext or justification to throw critical journalists in jail.

U.S. allies and close friends such as Azerbaijan, Egypt, Ethiopia, Morocco, and Pakistan are among the 10 countries where press freedom has most deteriorated, according to a CPJ survey. Others such as Tunisia are among the top censors of news worldwide.

As Sen. Richard Lugar recently noted, "The example of press freedom we set in this country is an important beacon to guide other nations as they make the transition from autocratic forms of government."

Or, as your former Senate colleague from Illinois, Richard Durbin, recently said, "America has long been a champion and source of hope around the world for those suffering human rights violations--those holed up in dictators' prisons, those fighting for press and political freedoms, those bravely standing up to tyranny or injustice." Sen. Durbin went on to say, "Sadly, I worry that a measure of this leadership, of this inspiration, and of this uniquely American hope has been lost in recent years."

This hope continues to be eroded by the U.S. military's ongoing detention of journalists. Fourteen journalists have been held for prolonged periods of time without due process in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. One is still behind bars. Ibrahim Jassam, a freelance photographer working for Reuters, was detained September 2 by U.S. forces in Baghdad. On November 30, the Iraqi Central Criminal Court ruled that there was no evidence to hold Jassam and ordered the U.S. military to release him. However, U.S. Army Maj. Eric Larson told CPJ in December that despite the Iraqi ruling the army could still detain Jassam if it deemed him a security threat. Larson said a military review would be initiated and could take up to 60 days.

Other journalists who have been held by the military without trial include:


Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi photographer, was part of The Associated Press team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2005. Arrested in 2006, Hussein was held for two years without being charged. In November, CPJ awarded Hussein an International Press Freedom Award.


Jawed Ahmad, an Afghan field producer with Canada's CTV, was detained in 2007 at a NATO airfield near Kandahar. Ahmad was moved to Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul and held for 11 months without being charged.


Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese cameraman with Al-Jazeera, was arrested by Pakistani forces in 2001 along the Afghan-Pakistani border while covering the U.S.-led offensive to oust the Taliban. Transferred to U.S. custody, he was moved to Guantanamo and held for six years without being charged.


Apart from Jassam who is still in detention, all 13 journalists held by the military were released without charge after spending weeks, months, or years in prison. The practice violates the U.S. military's own commitment to review journalist cases within 36 hours of detention. In March 2006, U.S. military officials in Baghdad and Washington informed Reuters and CPJ of a new procedure to bring quick, high-level attention to journalist detentions to ensure that working journalists would not be held without charge for prolonged periods. But the newly announced procedure was apparently abandoned within months, as I outlined in a November 2006 letter to then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

I believe the abolition of the practice of detaining journalists for prolonged periods without due process would send a clear signal that the United States upholds its long-standing commitment to free expression.

That signal would be further reinforced by an unequivocal commitment by your administration that the military will fully investigate the killing of any journalist at the hands of U.S. forces. Since 2003, at least 16 journalists have died and others have been seriously wounded by U.S. forces' fire in Iraq. So far as we know, U.S. military authorities have conducted investigations in less than a handful of cases. The investigations exonerated the soldiers involved in each case.

Some investigations failed to reconcile questions concerning operational command and control or contradictory statements by witnesses. A CPJ report found that an apparent breakdown in operational command and control contributed to the 2003 episode in which a U.S. tank fired on the Palestine Hotel, resulting in the deaths of two journalists. Other U.S. military investigations made specific recommendations to avoid a repetition of such incidents, including a review of the rules of engagement and improvements to command-and-control and checkpoint procedures. CPJ and Human Rights Watch together raised concerns about checkpoint security in a 2005 letter to Secretary Rumsfeld. But it remains unclear whether, or to what degree, the U.S. military has implemented its own or other recommendations.

Moreover, the U.S. military has yet to make public investigations concerning most other journalist cases involving U.S. forces. They include the 2003 airstrike on the Al-Jazeera television network's Baghdad bureau that killed correspondent Tareq Ayyoub.

The Pentagon should undertake a thorough and timely investigation into the death of any journalist by U.S. forces' fire. The results of such inquiries should be made public and the lessons drawn from it should be incorporated into operating procedures.

I also ask you to encourage the military to include procedures for heightened awareness among soldiers encountering journalists in the field. As U.S. troops find themselves increasingly engaged in confrontations with foes that operate deeply immersed within the civilian population, they must be trained to accept the presence of local journalists who have a legitimate right to cover the conflict. Far too often CPJ gets reports from local journalists in countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq of verbal and sometimes physical abuse by U.S. troops.

The Committee to Protect Journalists is a nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that accepts no government funds as it works to defend press freedom globally. Since CPJ was founded in 1981 by U.S. journalists concerned about their colleagues overseas, the overwhelming majority of our work has focused on defending journalists working in some of the most repressive conditions around the world.

The greatest threats to press freedom are twofold. One is the alarmingly high rate of impunity for murdering journalists worldwide: Nearly three out of four journalists killed in the line of duty are murdered, and the killers are unpunished in nearly nine of 10 cases. The other is the common incarceration of journalists for doing their jobs: No less than 125 journalists were in prison around the world as of December 1, 2008. Nearly half of those imprisoned are online journalists; they are now detained more often than journalists working in any other medium. CPJ focuses on these issues, along with many other forms of restrictions on press freedom around the world.

I cannot emphasize enough the importance of Washington's resolute defense of media freedom at this time of growing repression, censorship, and attacks on journalists around the world. I encourage you to make press freedom integral to both your domestic and foreign policy. As Thomas Jefferson noted, "Our liberty depends on freedom of the press, and that cannot be limited without being lost."

Sincerely,

Paul E. Steiger
Chairman, Committee to Protect Journalists

I wholeheartedly agree with this letter and hope Obama will take action (although I recognize he has a lot on his plate at the moment).

Any thoughts, outraged comments, etc, NSG?

Whats this rubbish about having consistent standards? Everyone knows the Consitution becomes irrelevant rubbish as soon as you move outside this set of imaginary lines on the ground despite any pledges you may have made to uphold it and the values it stands for...

In before someone claims that by not changing it yet Obama supports it, is just Bush III, and asks where the change is.


No, seriously, the practice is appalling, and Im hoping something is done ASAP.

OMG where's the cha-


In before someone claims that by not changing it yet Obama supports it, is just Bush III, and asks where the change is.

oh :(

Newsman: [trying to interview GIs returning to base after a hard day of fighting] Hey, word down at division is you guys can't take this hill. What do you have to say about that? In fact Senator Kennedy insists you guys haven't got a chance at all.
Sgt. Frantz: [glares at Newsman for a few seconds] You really like this shit, don't you? It's your job, a story, wait here like a fucking vulture for someone to die so you can take a picture.
Newsman: [becoming angry] It's my job...
Sgt. Frantz: I got more respect for those little bastards up on the hill. They take a side, you just take pictures. You probably don't even do your own fucking!
Newsman: What?
Sgt. Frantz: You listen to me. We're gonna take this fucking hill, Newsman. And if I catch you on top taking pictures of any of my people, I will blow your fucking head off. You haven't earned a right to be here. *You got that?*

newsman: [trying to interview gis returning to base after a hard day of fighting] hey, word down at division is you guys can't take this hill. What do you have to say about that? In fact senator kennedy insists you guys haven't got a chance at all.
Sgt. Frantz: [glares at newsman for a few seconds] you really like this shit, don't you? It's your job, a story, wait here like a fucking vulture for someone to die so you can take a picture.
Newsman: [becoming angry] it's my job...
Sgt. Frantz: I got more respect for those little bastards up on the hill. They take a side, you just take pictures. You probably don't even do your own fucking!
Newsman: What?
Sgt. Frantz: You listen to me. We're gonna take this fucking hill, newsman. And if i catch you on top taking pictures of any of my people, i will blow your fucking head off. You haven't earned a right to be here. *you got that?*

qft

-snip-

wow that's um...well it's quite irrelevant isn't it?

Newsman: [trying to interview GIs returning to base after a hard day of fighting] Hey, word down at division is you guys can't take this hill. What do you have to say about that? In fact Senator Kennedy insists you guys haven't got a chance at all.
Sgt. Frantz: [glares at Newsman for a few seconds] You really like this shit, don't you? It's your job, a story, wait here like a fucking vulture for someone to die so you can take a picture.
Newsman: [becoming angry] It's my job...
Sgt. Frantz: I got more respect for those little bastards up on the hill. They take a side, you just take pictures. You probably don't even do your own fucking!
Newsman: What?
Sgt. Frantz: You listen to me. We're gonna take this fucking hill, Newsman. And if I catch you on top taking pictures of any of my people, I will blow your fucking head off. You haven't earned a right to be here. *You got that?*



Yes. In the moral hierarchy, the soldier is higher then the reporter.

Unless that war corespondent is Joe the Plumber.

Not that your little anti-press rant is relvent or anything. We're not talking about the values of war corespondents.

wow that's um...well it's quite irrelevant isn't it?
No, in a round-about way, he's stating his support for the military detainment of press members that "get in their way".

At least it's relevant.

wow that's um...well it's quite irrelevant isn't it?

Not really. It's a common sentiment in the infantry, if you're considered an unfriendly reporter.

There's nothing like telling the reporter just about anything - 99 percent of them have no prior military experience, so they believe everything you say, and distort the rest.

Deliberately telling them wrong directions is the most fun you can have with a journalist.

wow that's um...well it's quite irrelevant isn't it?

The irony of using a fictitious example from Hollywood in order to paint the media as evil stupid traitors is sadly unintended.

Newsman: [trying to interview GIs returning to base after a hard day of fighting] Hey, word down at division is you guys can't take this hill. What do you have to say about that? In fact Senator Kennedy insists you guys haven't got a chance at all.
Sgt. Frantz: [glares at Newsman for a few seconds] You really like this shit, don't you? It's your job, a story, wait here like a fucking vulture for someone to die so you can take a picture.
Newsman: [becoming angry] It's my job...
Sgt. Frantz: I got more respect for those little bastards up on the hill. They take a side, you just take pictures. You probably don't even do your own fucking!
Newsman: What?
Sgt. Frantz: You listen to me. We're gonna take this fucking hill, Newsman. And if I catch you on top taking pictures of any of my people, I will blow your fucking head off. You haven't earned a right to be here. *You got that?*

Ah yes, being annoying is a perfect excuse for murder. That's why our system recognizes the legal defense "he was a son of a bitch."

Not really. It's a common sentiment in the infantry, if you're considered an unfriendly reporter.

There's nothing like telling the reporter just about anything - 99 percent of them have no prior military experience, so they believe everything you say, and distort the rest.

Deliberately telling them wrong directions is the most fun you can have with a journalist.

and that has to do with US detention of journalists....how, exactly?

We should probably stop doing things that make it easier for people to argue that we're morally equivalent to the people we're fighting. I'd guess it's something of a hindrance to our strategic goals.

Ah yes, being annoying is a perfect excuse for murder. That's why our system recognizes the legal defense "he was a son of a bitch."

No I believe he means the weapons misfire defense.

No I believe he means the weapons misfire defense.

oh look, DK has a disciple. Can I call you padawan?

No I believe he means the weapons misfire defense.

No, the "he took the wrong turn and ended up in Taliban country" defense.

oh look, DK has a disciple. Can I call you padawan?

Who the hell is DK?

And No.

No, the "he took the wrong turn and ended up in Taliban country" defense.

Ah, so you think it's a good thing to intentionally cause the death of somebody (be it through "accidentally" shooting them or having the Taliban do your dirty work) for the "crime" of annoying you, if you can get away with it?

Wow. That says a lot about you, though nothing that's a surprise.

Who the hell is DK?

And No.

awww, c'mon, be a pal!

1) Targeting journalists for the purpose of silencing or controlling the media is appalling and in violation of everything the US is supposed to stand for. Any such practices should be stopped immediately.

2) War correspondents do courageous work to report the truth of war. Their work is honorable, admirable and vital to a free society.

3) War correspondents take their chances on/near the front lines, just like everybody else. They should be neither obstructed nor coddled.

EDIT: 3A) When it comes to detaining journalists from neutral states or from the enemy's side, the message to US forces must be "Tough shit, if you don't want to be seen doing what you're doing in a war, don't fucking go to war."

4) Shooting people because you don't like them is called murder, and it's a crime even if someone is wearing a uniform when they do it. I understand that DK likes to tell us all how it's okay to kill this or that person or group of people, but he, of course, has been wrong about almost every single thing he has ever posted here, so ... so much for his "contribution."

oh look, DK has a disciple. Can I call you padawan?
Actually, the two positions seem to greatly differ. HW is stating that soldiers are justified in detaining journalists, whereas Brogavia seems to be condemning the perceived fact that "accidental deaths" are not as accidental as the military would have you believe.

Ah, so you think it's a good thing to intentionally cause the death of somebody (be it through "accidentally" shooting them or having the Taliban do your dirty work) for the "crime" of annoying you, if you can get away with it?

Wow. That says a lot about you, though nothing that's a surprise.

At the very least it indicates he's an expert in derailing threads.

Actually, the two positions seem to greatly differ. HW is stating that soldiers are justified in detaining journalists, whereas Brogavia seems to be condemning the perceived fact that "accidental deaths" are not as accidental as the military would have you believe.

given his enthusiastic endorsement of the Hamburger Hill quote, it seems that Brogavia is less "condemning" it as he is suggesting a way to get away with it.

4) Shooting people because you don't like them is called murder, and it's a crime even if someone is wearing a uniform when they do it. I understand that DK likes to tell us all how it's okay to kill this or that person or group of people, but he, of course, has been wrong about almost every single thing he has ever posted here, so ... so much for his "contribution."

Then again, the view is pretty good from the cheap seats, isn't it Mur?

Oh wait, I forgot, he was a "sniper"

Then again, the view is pretty good from the cheap seats, isn't it Mur?

Oh wait, I forgot, he was a "sniper"
I hope he wasn't shooting at points of argument because he misses every one of those.

the one held for 6 years was a bit much. but the other two were near military operations. being arrested and held for questioning shouldn't be unexpected.

In before someone claims that by not changing it yet Obama supports it, is just Bush III, and asks where the change is.


No, seriously, the practice is appalling, and Im hoping something is done ASAP.

Where's the Change, Sauron!?

:D

the one held for 6 years was a bit much. but the other two were near military operations. being arrested and held for questioning shouldn't be unexpected.

Apparently U.S. military regulations already cap the time for detention at 36 hours maximum, but the regulations are not being enforced.

Holding someone for questioning FOR A FEW HOURS when they are found on the battlefield is one thing -- days, weeks, months, and years without charges is obscene.

Apparently U.S. military regulations already cap the time for detention at 36 hours maximum, but the regulations are not being enforced.

Holding someone for questioning FOR A FEW HOURS when they are found on the battlefield is one thing -- days, weeks, months, and years without charges is obscene.
You know, you would think that would go without saying, but apparently not, and with some people, even saying it doesn't get it through their heads.

given his enthusiastic endorsement of the Hamburger Hill quote, it seems that Brogavia is less "condemning" it as he is suggesting a way to get away with it.

What my "Enthusiastic" Endorsement meant is that I agree that the media are fucking vultures.

What my "Enthusiastic" Endorsement meant is that I agree that the media are fucking vultures.

Why do you hate freedom?

Why do you hate freedom?

The "why do you hate freedom" comeback is a registared trademark of the United states Republician Party. Please pay a $200 royalty fee.

Apparently U.S. military regulations already cap the time for detention at 36 hours maximum, but the regulations are not being enforced.

Holding someone for questioning FOR A FEW HOURS when they are found on the battlefield is one thing -- days, weeks, months, and years without charges is obscene.

hat begins when the questioning starts. and it just took em a few months to get there.

Ah, so you think it's a good thing to intentionally cause the death of somebody (be it through "accidentally" shooting them or having the Taliban do your dirty work) for the "crime" of annoying you, if you can get away with it?

Wow. That says a lot about you, though nothing that's a surprise.

Do you remember the CBS reporter who got lost during the first Desert Storm?

He was captured by Saddam, and held in prison until we won that one.

Guess who gave him directions...

Poor Bob Simon and his crew...

hat begins when the questioning starts. and it just took em a few months to get there.

I question the truth of your assertion. From the letter (emphasis added): "The practice violates the U.S. military's own commitment to review journalist cases within 36 hours of detention."

Regardless, the idea that you can hold anyone, let alone a journalist, for months before you get around to even questioning them is repugnant beyond words.

I question the truth of your assertion. From the letter (emphasis added): "The practice violates the U.S. military's own commitment to review journalist cases within 36 hours of detention."

Regardless, the idea that you can hold anyone, let alone a journalist, for months before you get around to even questioning them is repugnant beyond words.

i was mostly being sarcastic. though i wonder what the official military side of the story was ? perhaps suspect information turned up.

i was mostly being sarcastic. though i wonder what the official military side of the story was ? perhaps suspect information turned up.

Given the track record of 'evidence' used.... I wouldn't hold your breath. :p

Well now the messiah will jail people who question his capabilities to lead.

Given the track record of 'evidence' used.... I wouldn't hold your breath. :p

used we are not certain of.
Released is rather scant.

Newsman: [trying to interview GIs returning to base after a hard day of fighting] Hey, word down at division is you guys can't take this hill. What do you have to say about that? In fact Senator Kennedy insists you guys haven't got a chance at all.
Sgt. Frantz: [glares at Newsman for a few seconds] You really like this shit, don't you? It's your job, a story, wait here like a fucking vulture for someone to die so you can take a picture.
Newsman: [becoming angry] It's my job...
Sgt. Frantz: I got more respect for those little bastards up on the hill. They take a side, you just take pictures. You probably don't even do your own fucking!
Newsman: What?
Sgt. Frantz: You listen to me. We're gonna take this fucking hill, Newsman. And if I catch you on top taking pictures of any of my people, I will blow your fucking head off. You haven't earned a right to be here. *You got that?*
Hamburger Hill. Nice movie. And?

Well now the messiah will jail people who question his capabilities to lead.

Ha.

Well now the messiah will jail people who question his capabilities to lead.

The dark lord rises! Fort Sumpter! FORT SUMPTER!!

Well now the messiah will jail people who question his capabilities to lead.

Do you think you will still be allowed to post here from jail?

1) Targeting journalists for the purpose of silencing or controlling the media is appalling and in violation of everything the US is supposed to stand for. Any such practices should be stopped immediately.

2) War correspondents do courageous work to report the truth of war. Their work is honorable, admirable and vital to a free society.

3) War correspondents take their chances on/near the front lines, just like everybody else. They should be neither obstructed nor coddled.

EDIT: 3A) When it comes to detaining journalists from neutral states or from the enemy's side, the message to US forces must be "Tough shit, if you don't want to be seen doing what you're doing in a war, don't fucking go to war."

4) Shooting people because you don't like them is called murder, and it's a crime even if someone is wearing a uniform when they do it. I understand that DK likes to tell us all how it's okay to kill this or that person or group of people, but he, of course, has been wrong about almost every single thing he has ever posted here, so ... so much for his "contribution."


^This^ Especially the bolded, since I feel it needs emphasis after DKs and his padawan's little tirade.

Oh, and....

In before someone claims that by not changing it yet Obama supports it, is just Bush III, and asks where the change is.
Well now the messiah will jail people who question his capabilities to lead.

Fuckin called it. But to be honest I thought itd be from DK.

Fuckin called it. But to be honest I thought itd be from DK.

You know, it would be entertaining, in threads, to wager on who will be the first to post "WHERE'S THE CHANGE?!?!" (but not satirically).

<SNIP>
This hope continues to be eroded by the U.S. military's ongoing detention of journalists. Fourteen journalists have been held for prolonged periods of time without due process in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. One is still behind bars. Ibrahim Jassam, a freelance photographer working for Reuters, was detained September 2 by U.S. forces in Baghdad. On November 30, the Iraqi Central Criminal Court ruled that there was no evidence to hold Jassam and ordered the U.S. military to release him. However, U.S. Army Maj. Eric Larson told CPJ in December that despite the Iraqi ruling the army could still detain Jassam if it deemed him a security threat. Larson said a military review would be initiated and could take up to 60 days.

Other journalists who have been held by the military without trial include:


Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi photographer, was part of The Associated Press team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2005. Arrested in 2006, Hussein was held for two years without being charged. In November, CPJ awarded Hussein an International Press Freedom Award.


Jawed Ahmad, an Afghan field producer with Canada's CTV, was detained in 2007 at a NATO airfield near Kandahar. Ahmad was moved to Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul and held for 11 months without being charged.


Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese cameraman with Al-Jazeera, was arrested by Pakistani forces in 2001 along the Afghan-Pakistani border while covering the U.S.-led offensive to oust the Taliban. Transferred to U.S. custody, he was moved to Guantanamo and held for six years without being charged.



Am I the only one who notices a disturbing theme in which reporters are being held without trial?

Am I the only one who notices a disturbing theme in which reporters are being held without trial?

Disturbing, yes.

Suprising? Not so much.

*walks into thread*

That signal would be further reinforced by an unequivocal commitment by your administration that the military will fully investigate the killing of any journalist at the hands of U.S. forces.

Paul E. Steiger can go shove that letter up his arse if he wants the investigation of every journalist who dies whilst out in a goddamn combat zone and this letter seems to be phrased in every way like soldiers are running around killing journalists left right and centre

*walks out of thread*

Let's see, Bush policies being reminiscent of tinpot dictatorships, one "where's the change, Sauron" post, DK SUPPORTING tinpot dictatorship policies...

...Anything new?

*walks into thread*



Paul E. Steiger can go shove that letter up his arse if he wants the investigation of every journalist who dies whilst out in a goddamn combat zone and this letter seems to be phrased in every way like soldiers are running around killing journalists left right and centre

*walks out of thread*

I fully support this post. War zones are dangerous. News people know the risks when they pursue the scoop.

I fully support this post. War zones are dangerous. News people know the risks when they pursue the scoop.

When risks include purposeful death or imprisonment at the hands of the so-called forces of democracy, NO THEY DO NOT.

I fully support this post. War zones are dangerous. News people know the risks when they pursue the scoop.

you wouldn't believe the stupid crap the coalition was given when it started insisting that journalists be attached to units during the Iraq war

SNIP

haven't you got some veterans to throw rocks at or have you calmed down yet?

and no soldiers can detain journalists if they see fit seeing as how they are the ones who will suddenly be expected to look after them when they get in the shit

-snip-

My opinion depends: if they're Al-Jazeera reporters then they deserve to get waxed. Otherwise, yeah efforts should be made to protect them. :tongue:

haven't you got some veterans to throw rocks at

Nope, I already killed them all. I watched them quiver as I cracked open their skulls with my rocks, I delighted in their unanswered cries for mercy, and when I finally got to gouge their eyes off, one by one, I LOVED IT.

There. Now that I posted the answer you wanted so much to hear, fake though it may be, will you quit flamebaiting and ADDRESS MY POINT?

Ah yes, being annoying is a perfect excuse for murder. That's why our system recognizes the legal defense "he was a son of a bitch."

Does that mean it's open season on DK?

My opinion depends: if they're Al-Jazeera reporters then they deserve to get waxed.

Why?

you wouldn't believe the stupid crap the coalition was given when it started insisting that journalists be attached to units during the Iraq war

Yeah, you'd almost think that being embedded would compromise journalists' attempts at objectivity and thus their ability to do their job. Why would they complain about that?

Why?

The Bush brand of democracy: Everyone is at full liberty to agree completely with him.

Am I the only one who notices a disturbing theme in which reporters are being held without trial?
Nope, you're not the only one.

Nope, you're not the only one.

Am I the only one nearly laughing insanely without any amusement or joy at the fact that Bush touted "democracy", "freedom" and "liberty" before, y'know, rounding up reporters?

Am I the only one nearly laughing insanely without any amusement of joy at the fact that Bush touted "democracy", "freedom" and "liberty" before, y'know, rounding up reporters?
Well, you're certainly not the only one glaringly aware of it, but I think most of us are just feeling kind of sick to our stomachs, more than laughing.

Am I the only one nearly laughing insanely without any amusement of joy at the fact that Bush touted "democracy", "freedom" and "liberty" before, y'know, rounding up reporters?Irony is not always funny.

Well, you're certainly not the only one glaringly aware of it, but I think most of us are just feeling kind of sick to our stomachs, more than laughing.This. ^^

Well, you're certainly not the only one glaringly aware of it, but I think most of us are just feeling kind of sick to our stomachs, more than laughing.

Keep in mind that I marked "without any amusement or joy" for a reason. Laughing at something that infuriates you has a history of happening.

Irony is not always funny.

*Sighs* People have been known to laugh in anger or despair.

Keep in mind that I marked "without any amusement or joy" for a reason. Laughing at something that infuriates you has a story of happening.Actually, you wrote "amusement of joy", which confused people. In this post, you probably mean "a history of happening".

Actually, you wrote "amusement of joy", which confused people. In this post, you probably mean "a history of happening".

...

'scuse me, this translator is gonna kill himself now.

:p

*Sighs* People have been known to laugh in anger or despair.I know. I'm rather sick to death of Bush in general. "Bush did this, Bush did that." I'm sick of what Bush did. I'm ready for what Obama does.

I know. I'm rather sick to death of Bush in general. "Bush did this, Bush did that." I'm sick of what Bush did. I'm ready for what Obama does.

I propose we sacrifice Bush to see if that brings back the Iraq dead, auction small chunks of his body to exotic rich people to help with the debt issue, and... flip him the bird (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ArsonMurderAndJaywalking).

Why?

Al-Jazeera reporters are all terrorist sympathizers and will do anything to make the NATO occupation efforts look negative. A great example of that was spinning the insurgent killings of those civillians into a case against Blackwater.

Al-Jazeera reporters are all terrorist sympathizers and will do anything to make the NATO occupation efforts look negative. A great example of that was spinning the insurgent killings of those civillians into a case against Blackwater.

Why did you make such a wordy post, seeing as it could have been easily summarized in the words "they disagree with me"?

Yeah, you'd almost think that being embedded would compromise journalists' attempts at objectivity and thus their ability to do their job.

bawww why can't I get in the way? bawww why is it when journalists get killed for being where they shouldn't be a full military investigation isn't carried out? bawww the military is trying to control civilians in a warzone

Snip.

The difference between the journalists and the soldiers is the journalists actually have some business being there.

bawww why can't I get in the way? bawww why is it when journalists get killed for being where they shouldn't be a full military investigation isn't carried out? bawww the military is trying to control civilians in a warzone

:rolleyes:

bawww you can't murder civilians and get away with it! you evil liberals are just a bunch of wet blankets who are raining on our parade! bawww, freedom of the press doesn't matter! bawww, you don't even let us rape and murder teenage girls without raising a big ole hissy fit! bawww!

The difference between the journalists and the soldiers is the journalists actually have some business being there.Yes, freedom of the press is absolutely vital, but, if the journalist dies while in a combat zone, whose fault is it?

I'm honestly curious. Won't the military be blamed either way?

Yes, freedom of the press is absolutely vital, but, if the journalist dies while in a combat zone, whose fault is it?

I'm honestly curious. Won't the military be blamed either way?

Depends, doesn't it? Was the journalist playing safe and following the procedures that most certainly exist? If so, not his fault.

Besides, that's besides the point here. The Military doesn't have the right to imprison journalists for days, weeks, months or years.

:rolleyes:

bawww you can't murder civilians and get away with it! you evil liberals are just a bunch of wet blankets who are raining on our parade! bawww, freedom of the press doesn't matter! bawww, you don't even let us rape and murder teenage girls without raising a big ole hissy fit! bawww!

Thank you.

The Military doesn't have the right to imprison journalists for days, weeks, months or years.No, they don't.

No, they don't.

Yes they d... wait, that's not the Argument Sketch. Er...

Indeed they don't.

Which is what we're discussing at the moment here.

Yes, however, when journalists are killed, there has to be an investigation. You can look at the likes of Wanderjar in this very forum to be able to tell why.

Which is what we're discussing at the moment here.And I just agreed with you. What else can we say? (Dammit, it's no fun when we aren't arguing! :mad:)

Dammit, it's no fun when we aren't arguing! :mad:

Yes it is!

(Ah, Monty Python on YouTube...)

Yes it is!

(Ah, Monty Python on YouTube...)I read that as "Much Porn on Youtube", which made no sense. ...I am suffering from lack of sleep. :(

I read that as "Much Porn on Youtube", which made no sense. ...I am suffering from lack of sleep. :(

No, no. My porn I download in images. Indeed, I... *Looks around*

Oh. Public forum. Right.

No, no. My porn I download in images. Indeed, I... *Looks around*

Oh. Public forum. Right.The Mods are buddies with the FCC*. They'sa comin' to get yuh. ;)


*This is a joke, in no way is the statement meant to be interpreted to be truthful.

*This is a joke, in no way is the statement meant to be interpreted to be truthful.

o_O...

I know.

Do you remember the CBS reporter who got lost during the first Desert Storm?

He was captured by Saddam, and held in prison until we won that one.

Guess who gave him directions...

Poor Bob Simon and his crew...

wait wait wait. . . the US of A won the first gulf war? But I thought you moved in, stopped short of your stated objective then left? . . . .I thought that was loosing?

o_O...

I know.:p

But I thought you moved in, stopped short of your stated objective then left?No, I'm pretty sure there weren't any Iraqi armed forces units left in Kuwait, and I'm pretty sure that Saudi Arabia never got invaded with serious force.

and no soldiers can detain journalists if they see fit seeing as how they are the ones who will suddenly be expected to look after them when they get in the shit

for six years? Man that particular fire fight went on a looooong time.

No, I'm pretty sure there weren't any Iraqi armed forces units left in Kuwait, and I'm pretty sure that Saudi Arabia never got invaded with serious force.

True . . .actually I guess partial success would be closer but the US invaded Iraq (following beating his forces out of Kuwait) to depose Sadam didn't they? and then left before they did? (I'm not saying it was the wrong call just that they didn't accomplish that particular objective)

for six years? Man that particular fire fight went on a looooong time.

*Raises a sign with 9.5 on it*

In my day, journalists were managed better in times of war. The correspondent in our company didn't have a camera, he had a 1908 Springfield, and was instructed to only take distant profile shots of Japanese officers.

We kept journalists out of the way. Instead, we made movies, sponsored by cigarette companies, with fantastic soundtracks by the Paul Whiteman Orchestra and the Miles Davis Nonet.

We would've given them wrong directions in hopes that they'd be captured by the enemy, but back then, that kind of pathetic, disgusting, cowardly way to hurt a non-combatant was against policy. Fucking Roosevelt...

True . . .actually I guess partial success would be closer but the US invaded Iraq (following beating his forces out of Kuwait) to depose Sadam didn't they? and then left before they did? (I'm not saying it was the wrong call just that they didn't accomplish that particular objective)No.
On August 20 President Bush [Sr.] signed National Security Directive 45, "U.S. Policy in Response to the Iraqi Invasion of Kuwait," outlining U.S. objectives - which included the "immediate, complete, and unconditional withdrawal of all Iraqi forces from Kuwait," and the "restoration of Kuwait's legitimate government to replace the puppet regime installed by Iraq."Link.
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB39/)

NSD 45. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB39/document2.pdf)(pdf)

in my day, journalists were managed better in times of war. The correspondent in our company didn't have a camera, he had a 1908 springfield, and was instructed to only take distant profile shots of japanese officers.

We kept journalists out of the way. Instead, we made movies, sponsored by cigarette companies, with fantastic soundtracks by the paul whiteman orchestra and the miles davis nonet.

We would've given them wrong directions in hopes that they'd be captured by the enemy, but back then, that kind of pathetic, disgusting, cowardly way to hurt a non-combatant was against policy. Fucking roosevelt...

ahhh! A ghost!

No.
Link.
(http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB39/)

NSD 45. (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB39/document2.pdf)(pdf)

lol well my bad then. (admittedly my knowledge of the First gulf war is . . .spotty at best.)

Then again, the view is pretty good from the cheap seats, isn't it Mur?

Oh wait, I forgot, he was a "sniper"

With the 101st fighting keyboards, wasn't he?

Al-Jazeera reporters are all terrorist sympathizers and will do anything to make the NATO occupation efforts look negative. A great example of that was spinning the insurgent killings of those civillians into a case against Blackwater.

Do you have any evidence for any of this?

bawww why can't I get in the way? bawww why is it when journalists get killed for being where they shouldn't be a full military investigation isn't carried out? bawww the military is trying to control civilians in a warzone

Do you believe that deaths of embedded journalists should never be investigated?

Should some be investigated? How do you decide which should be investigated and which should not?

What do you feel is a reasonable amount of control over civilians in a warzone? Complete control? If a journalist witnesses a soldier committing a rape and killing of a teenage girl, for example, do you think the soldier should have the right of completely controlling the journalist's actions in order to silence their testimony?

Al-Jazeera reporters are all terrorist sympathizers and will do anything to make the NATO occupation efforts look negative.
Rageh Omaar and David Frost are "terrorist sympathizers"? How intriguing.

Also, where is NATO occupying?

Rageh Omaar and David Frost are "terrorist sympathizers"? How intriguing.

Also, where is NATO occupying?

of course they're terrorist sympathizers. Al Qaeda, Al Jazeera... can't you see the similarity?

of course they're terrorist sympathizers. Al Qaeda, Al Jazeera... can't you see the similarity?

Both use articles in their names? :p

In my day, journalists were managed better in times of war. The correspondent in our company didn't have a camera, he had a 1908 Springfield, and was instructed to only take distant profile shots of Japanese officers.

We kept journalists out of the way. Instead, we made movies, sponsored by cigarette companies, with fantastic soundtracks by the Paul Whiteman Orchestra and the Miles Davis Nonet.

We would've given them wrong directions in hopes that they'd be captured by the enemy, but back then, that kind of pathetic, disgusting, cowardly way to hurt a non-combatant was against policy. Fucking Roosevelt...

I'm sorry Roosevelt happened to you.

of course they're terrorist sympathizers. Al Qaeda, Al Jazeera... can't you see the similarity?

Alcoholics Anonymous. The ultimate terrorist cell!:eek:

Al Jaamea, Al Say-yara, Al Ustaath

Some of the most feared terrorist cells in the world

Actually, The University, The Car, and The Teacher, respectively

Al Bundy!

bawww you can't murder civilians and get away with it! you evil liberals are just a bunch of wet blankets who are raining on our parade! bawww, freedom of the press doesn't matter! bawww, you don't even let us rape and murder teenage girls without raising a big ole hissy fit! bawww!

what do you think soldiers get up to when the cameras are off? thank god for CCTV in your town O_o

for six years? Man that particular fire fight went on a looooong time.

yeah that gets a bit iffy but the right for people doing their job to get the press out of the way if its necessary is rather needed

In my day, journalists were managed better in times of war. The correspondent in our company didn't have a camera, he had a 1908 Springfield, and was instructed to only take distant profile shots of Japanese officers.

those were the days :(

Do you believe that deaths of embedded journalists should never be investigated?

no what the letter is calling for is every death being thoroughly investigated which is stupid in a conflict zone

Should some be investigated? How do you decide which should be investigated and which should not?

suspicious stuff...you' know how about we have the embedded journalists be treated the same as the soldiers

What do you feel is a reasonable amount of control over civilians in a warzone?

thats a rather big question that depends on the background but it would be stupid for instance to refuse soldiers the ability to search suspects

Complete control?

don't be stupid

If a journalist witnesses a soldier committing a rape and killing of a teenage girl, for example, do you think the soldier should have the right of completely controlling the journalist's actions in order to silence their testimony?

how would he do this? though its nice that you bring up things like this as if the chain of command wouldn't put said soldier on trail

what do you think soldiers get up to when the cameras are off? thank god for CCTV in your town O_o

All the more reason to keep those cameras rolling and invite the press to witness all.

Al Bundy!

:eek:

How can that be? What could be more American than scoring four touchdowns in a single game?

Perhaps not everything that begins with 'Al' is evil... I have to rethink of my worldview.

All the more reason to keep those cameras rolling and invite the press to witness all.

no because that interferes with the soldiers operational lives (FYI they usually are and I've seen some amazing pictures from photographers)

no because that interferes with the soldiers operational lives

You mean the aforementioned off-camera rape? That was kind of the point.

You mean the aforementioned off-camera rape? That was kind of the point.

no I do not and you know damn well I do not along with that not at all being relevant

no I do not and you know damn well I do not along with that not at all being relevant

Then you'll surely be able to tell us why the hell it's not relevant.

Along with why is it that you flamebaited me when I pointed out that, YES, war correspondents DO have the right to safety and not to be jailed for what they do, ESPECIALLY BY THE ARMY OF THE COUNTRY THAT'S CALLING THAT ACCURSED ACT OF GENOCIDE "BRINGING DEMOCRACY".

Do you have a dog in this fight? Are you so tied-up in "good ol' boys" feeling that you're willing to let RAPE happen unnoticed just so the grunts that have no business being in the country in the first place can feel relieved at the fact that they can go "whee, we're a fucking tinpot dictatorship" on any journalists their little whims tells them to?

Yes it's relevant. Yes there must be media coverage. ALL media. You're either in favor of allowing people to see something or you're supporting the kind of tinpot dictatorship Bush so claimed to be against in this accursed war.

This is rape we're talking about. Torture, too. You don't get to pick and choose "Only-Fox-News" to cover this damn war.

No. What the letter is calling for is every death being thoroughly investigated, which is stupid in a conflict zone.

Every death at the hands of US troops. Sixteen in all. Did you think it meant every death of a journalist?

suspicious stuff...you' know how about we have the embedded journalists be treated the same as the soldiers

And what are those criteria?

thats a rather big question that depends on the background but it would be stupid for instance to refuse soldiers the ability to search suspects

don't be stupid

how would he do this? though its nice that you bring up things like this as if the chain of command wouldn't put said soldier on trail

So, how much control should the military have over journalist's actions, then?

"Oh land of the free..." Yeah, right.

Every death at the hands of US troops. Sixteen in all. Did you think it meant every death of a journalist?

nope what I'm getting at is its asking for full investigations of friendly fire incidents which tragedy as it is, happens to be more of a inevitability of conflict

if its suspicious MP's investigate just like with any soldiers death

And what are those criteria?

reports that don't make sense, conflicting reports

do I really need to go into what would arouse suspicion?

So, how much control should the military have over journalist's actions, then?

in a combat zone? up to the ability to detain them if the men operating in the zone feel the journalist is interfering with their rather important work of staying alive

nope what I'm getting at is its asking for full investigations of friendly fire incidents which tragedy as it is, happens to be more of a inevitability of conflict

if its suspicious MP's investigate just like with any soldiers death

Wow, a comma.

So, when a soldier shoots another soldier in his unit, everyone just shrugs and says, "Well, that was inevitable!"?

reports that don't make sense, conflicting reports

do I really need to go into what would arouse suspicion?

Yes. You could simply provide a link to a website showing the criteria of the DoD, or whoever takes care of these things.

in a combat zone? up to the ability to detain them if the men operating in the zone feel the journalist is interfering with their rather important work of staying alive

So, it would be legitimate to complain if the military attempted to control civilians when there was no compelling safety reason.

Somehow, I'm reminded of that cluster-fuck in Somalia where the Press (bright lights and producers-at night)were at the "Secret" landing zone for the seal Team before the Seal Team were there.

Wow, a comma.

hush my grammar sucks but its not to a standard that causes you difficulty (or at least I haven't had any complaints)

So, when a soldier shoots another soldier in his unit, everyone just shrugs and says, "Well, that was inevitable!"?

pretty much shit happens and such

Yes. You could simply provide a link to a website showing the criteria of the DoD, or whoever takes care of these things.

well absence of the normal presence of the abnormal would be the phrase to use

as for finding any criteria I'd hazard that you won't find such information in anywhere but websites such as armynet without making an query to (in this case) CID so you may be out of luck there :/

So, it would be legitimate to complain if the military attempted to control civilians when there was no compelling safety reason.

pretty much but a conflict zone is a compelling safety reason so there we go

pretty much shit happens and such

I don't believe you.

well absence of the normal presence of the abnormal would be the phrase to use

as for finding any criteria I'd hazard that you won't find such information in anywhere but websites such as armynet without making an query to (in this case) CID so you may be out of luck there :/

So you're unable to provide any criteria.

pretty much but a conflict zone is a compelling safety reason so there we go

So then we're right back to the military having total control over the journalists in a combat zone.

Just to recap, you have claimed that friendly fire is considered unimportant by the armed forces, you have no criteria for judging whether or not friendly fire is suspicious, and you think everyone shouldn't complain when soldiers imprison you for as long as they think it would be safe.

I don't believe you.

tough.

So you're unable to provide any criteria.

well your welcome to call up an inquire but the idea that I'm going to find sites that deal with this is unlikely to the extreme

So then we're right back to the military having total control over the journalists in a combat zone.

I guess so then health and safety prevails yet again

you have claimed that friendly fire is considered unimportant by the armed forces

that not what I said the level of hyperboles your putting up will likely start causing black holes soon

you have no criteria for judging whether or not friendly fire is suspicious

well thats where the Military Police branch along with commanding officers judgment comes into play I'd hazard

and you think everyone shouldn't complain when soldiers imprison you for as long as they think it would be safe.

soldiers don't imprison you they detain in this case journalists who are then passed along to MP units

t
that not what I said the level of hyperboles your putting up will likely start causing black holes soon

That's not what you said? Well, GoG said this:


So, when a soldier shoots another soldier in his unit, everyone just shrugs and says, "Well, that was inevitable!"?


And you replied with this:

pretty much shit happens and such

Which clearly contains a premise of unimportance.

Perhaps those black wholes aren't forming just yet...

Perhaps those black wholes aren't forming just yet...

or rather I could point to

if its suspicious MP's investigate just like with any soldiers death

or rather I could point to

I'm aware your posts contradict themselves.

At one point you claim they "pretty much" just shrug and say "inevitable", at another point you say there is an investigation.

The fact that you're inconsistent in your argument doesn't mean that you didn't, in one of your posts, indicate unimportance.

I'm aware your posts contradict themselves.

actually the context the question was asked follows on from the incident not being of suspicion and as such is a waste of resources to investigate

tough.

Wow. You're really good at debating.

well your welcome to call up an inquire but the idea that I'm going to find sites that deal with this is unlikely to the extreme

Considering the depth of your acumen so far, I can only agree that it would be highly unlikely for you to provide some sort of support for your vague claims.

But I would suggest this to you: if shooting your own troops is so commonplace in the military that no one thinks twice about it, you're doing it wrong.

I guess so then health and safety prevails yet again

So, you believe that the military should be able to imprison journalists for years without charges if they feel it is the safest thing?

that not what I said the level of hyperboles your putting up will likely start causing black holes soon

You said everyone just shrugs and assumes it was inevitable.

well thats where the Military Police branch along with commanding officers judgment comes into play I'd hazard

How do they judge if the friendly fire is worth investigating?

soldiers don't imprison you they detain in this case journalists who are then passed along to MP units

And MPs are not soldiers?

actually the context the question was asked follows on from the incident not being of suspicion and as such is a waste of resources to investigate

The question was this:

So, when a soldier shoots another soldier in his unit, everyone just shrugs and says, "Well, that was inevitable!"?

Its context is clearly very broad. Your reply was this:

pretty much shit happens and such

The context of which clearly renders a premise of "unimportance", despite you claiming it does not.

That you described it inconsistently somewhere else isn't GoG's fault, and when taken in the context of your own words, its hardly hyperbole for GoG to call you on what you said.

Wow. You're really good at debating.

what would you like me to do? your won't find helpful sources on the matter on line because there is no rush to report it

But I would suggest this to you: if shooting your own troops is so commonplace in the military that no one thinks twice about it, you're doing it wrong.

usually its something that occurs in self error (or coming under negligent discharge) or from the chaos of the battlefield

sad but there we go

So, you believe that the military should be able to imprison journalists for years without charges if they feel it is the safest thing?

I never worked to defend that point what gripes me on the letter is the fact that it demands a special treatment for journalists which is beyond what soldiers will receive

You said everyone just shrugs and assumes it was inevitable.

their is leeway because it is a chaotic environment with split second decisions

How do they judge if the friendly fire is worth investigating?

presence of the abnormal absence of the normal

And MPs are not soldiers?

soldier is a very broad term but military police operate outside of the regular command structure in the same way as medical staff

And MPs are not soldiers?MPs do operate a bit differently than most other soldiers, but they are soldiers, yes.

what would you like me to do? your won't find helpful sources on the matter on line because there is no rush to report it

You don't actually know anything about it, do you?

usually its something that occurs in self error (or coming under negligent discharge) or from the chaos of the battlefield

sad but there we go

Repeating yourself doesn't move the debate forwrd.

I never worked to defend that point what gripes me on the letter is the fact that it demands a special treatment for journalists which is beyond what soldiers will receive

Will journalists receive better treatment? I doubt it. Very much. Considering the veneration of the military in the US, and especially by military families in the US, I highly doubt that everyone will care more for the journalist than those 'brave men and women in uniform who made the ultimate sacrifice...blahblahblah'.

their is leeway because it is a chaotic environment with split second decisions

Tell me, do you use the Fog of War as a rationalisation for every fuck-up, or just when US troops shoot NATO forces?

presence of the abnormal absence of the normal

What's normal? I didn't realise there was a 'normal' way to shoot your buddies.

soldier is a very broad term but military police operate outside of the regular command structure in the same way as medical staff

Yes, but they are soldiers. Soldiers who detain other soldiers, and obviously, journalists.

Al-Jazeera reporters are all terrorist sympathizers and will do anything to make the NATO occupation efforts look negative. A great example of that was spinning the insurgent killings of those civillians into a case against Blackwater.

Ho boy.:rolleyes:

When risks include purposeful death or imprisonment at the hands of the so-called forces of democracy, NO THEY DO NOT.

See comments in bold.

1) purposeful death - didn't happen. That's either something you really think happened or you are willfully distorting the truth. Reporters died, but we can safely say it was not purposeful, however tragic.
2) imprisonment - simply hasn't happened.
3) "so-called" just seems like you are trying to be abrasive to american soldiers.

I believe the original issue we were discussing was whether or not US troops should be investigated for war crimes for murdering journalists. Since murder was never committed, the journalists deaths being accidental, I think it's safe to say that some anti-US interest group is sponsoring this as an attempt to get a "back door" way to hurt the US by persecuting our grunts on the ground to retaliate for foreign policy decisions which these interest groups don't like.

We should probably stop doing things that make it easier for people to argue that we're morally equivalent to the people we're fighting. I'd guess it's something of a hindrance to our strategic goals.

This is a very good point: it is hard to argue you're the good guy when even the other side isn't pulling some of the shit you are

See comments in bold.

1) purposeful death - didn't happen. That's either something you really think happened or you are willfully distorting the truth. Reporters died, but we can safely say it was not purposeful, however tragic.
2) imprisonment - simply hasn't happened.
3) "so-called" just seems like you are trying to be abrasive to american soldiers.

I believe the original issue we were discussing was whether or not US troops should be investigated for war crimes for murdering journalists. Since murder was never committed, the journalists deaths being accidental, I think it's safe to say that some anti-US interest group is sponsoring this as an attempt to get a "back door" way to hurt the US by persecuting our grunts on the ground to retaliate for foreign policy decisions which these interest groups don't like.

I'm sorry, but I'm gonna disconsider your post as it has no basis.

See comments in bold.

1) purposeful death - didn't happen. That's either something you really think happened or you are willfully distorting the truth. Reporters died, but we can safely say it was not purposeful, however tragic.

Proof?

2) imprisonment - simply hasn't happened.

So . . . you're saying that the letter quoted in the OP is requesting the release of people who are already free and who were never held? :confused:


This hope continues to be eroded by the U.S. military's ongoing detention of journalists. Fourteen journalists have been held for prolonged periods of time without due process in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Guantanamo. One is still behind bars. Ibrahim Jassam, a freelance photographer working for Reuters, was detained September 2 by U.S. forces in Baghdad. On November 30, the Iraqi Central Criminal Court ruled that there was no evidence to hold Jassam and ordered the U.S. military to release him. However, U.S. Army Maj. Eric Larson told CPJ in December that despite the Iraqi ruling the army could still detain Jassam if it deemed him a security threat. Larson said a military review would be initiated and could take up to 60 days.

Other journalists who have been held by the military without trial include:

* Bilal Hussein, an Iraqi photographer, was part of The Associated Press team that won a Pulitzer Prize in 2005. Arrested in 2006, Hussein was held for two years without being charged. In November, CPJ awarded Hussein an International Press Freedom Award.

* Jawed Ahmad, an Afghan field producer with Canada's CTV, was detained in 2007 at a NATO airfield near Kandahar. Ahmad was moved to Bagram Air Base outside of Kabul and held for 11 months without being charged.

* Sami al-Haj, a Sudanese cameraman with Al-Jazeera, was arrested by Pakistani forces in 2001 along the Afghan-Pakistani border while covering the U.S.-led offensive to oust the Taliban. Transferred to U.S. custody, he was moved to Guantanamo and held for six years without being charged.


Apart from Jassam who is still in detention, all 13 journalists held by the military were released without charge after spending weeks, months, or years in prison. The practice violates the U.S. military's own commitment to review journalist cases within 36 hours of detention. In March 2006, U.S. military officials in Baghdad and Washington informed Reuters and CPJ of a new procedure to bring quick, high-level attention to journalist detentions to ensure that working journalists would not be held without charge for prolonged periods. But the newly announced procedure was apparently abandoned within months, as I outlined in a November 2006 letter to then-Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld.

See the bold parts.

See comments in bold.

1) purposeful death - didn't happen. That's either something you really think happened or you are willfully distorting the truth. Reporters died, but we can safely say it was not purposeful, however tragic.
2) imprisonment - simply hasn't happened.
3) "so-called" just seems like you are trying to be abrasive to american soldiers.

I believe the original issue we were discussing was whether or not US troops should be investigated for war crimes for murdering journalists. Since murder was never committed, the journalists deaths being accidental, I think it's safe to say that some anti-US interest group is sponsoring this as an attempt to get a "back door" way to hurt the US by persecuting our grunts on the ground to retaliate for foreign policy decisions which these interest groups don't like.

I'm going to ignore the part where you are simply wrong about the imprisonment.

How do you know that none of these journalists were murdered by soldiers if no investigations were done?

I'm going to ignore the part where you are simply wrong about the imprisonment.

How do you know that none of these journalists were murdered by soldiers if no investigations were done?

I didn't read the post about imprisonment closely enough. It's true, that maybe shouldn't have happened. Depends if they were real journalists or just insurgents using the occupation of journalist as cover.

As for your second statement - I don't think investigations are appropriate, because these investigations in the past, when allowed to proceed, have resulted in nothing but kangaroo courts and media sound bytes, and no actual justice other than to punish a few innocent soldiers. And I particularly do not think that any international or third party groups should be allowed to participate in said investigations.

When you deal with enemies like we are dealing with, you give even one potential foothold to strike at our military and they will exploit it to the fullest.
I think the comments of several posters here have revealed the irrational hate which is felt for american soldiers even in supposedly democracy-loving countries and serves to support that concern.

I didn't read the post about imprisonment closely enough. It's true, that maybe shouldn't have happened. Depends if they were real journalists or just insurgents using the occupation of journalist as cover.

"Maybe" shouldn't have happened? So you start with statements absent the facts, and when the facts interfere with your premise, you just downplay them?

They "maybe" should have been held for years without being charged? If they were insurgents, charge them as such. But whoever they are, holding them for years without charge or trial is grotesquely unjust.

I think the comments of several posters here have revealed the irrational hate which is felt for american soldiers even in supposedly democracy-loving countries and serves to support that concern.

Your statement is not only wrong, it's also incomprehensible.

Nope, I already killed them all. I watched them quiver as I cracked open their skulls with my rocks, I delighted in their unanswered cries for mercy, and when I finally got to gouge their eyes off, one by one, I LOVED IT.

There. Now that I posted the answer you wanted so much to hear, fake though it may be, will you quit flamebaiting and ADDRESS MY POINT?

When risks include purposeful death or imprisonment at the hands of the so-called forces of democracy, NO THEY DO NOT.

Actually, Heikoku, I'm glad you responded, because your vitriol speaks for itself and is one of the reasons we would never allow our soldiers to be prosecuted by an external entity.

Actually, Heikoku, I'm glad you responded, because your vitriol speaks for itself and is one of the reasons we would never allow our soldiers to be prosecuted by an external entity.

So, emphatically and explicitly fake "vitriol", combined with empathically decrying the purposeful death and imprisonment of non-combatants speaks for itself?

Well, yes, it does speak for itself, maybe not in the way you think...

Actually, Heikoku, I'm glad you responded, because your vitriol speaks for itself and is one of the reasons we would never allow our soldiers to be prosecuted by an external entity.

You take one sarcasm post and one post pointing out that reporters shouldn't be jailed by people calling themselves "forces of democracy" and you draw THIS sham of a conclusion?

You know, just for once, I wish my opponents knew how to interpret a text.

...
As for your second statement - I don't think investigations are appropriate, because these investigations in the past, when allowed to proceed, have resulted in nothing but kangaroo courts and media sound bytes, and no actual justice other than to punish a few innocent soldiers. And I particularly do not think that any international or third party groups should be allowed to participate in said investigations.

When you deal with enemies like we are dealing with, you give even one potential foothold to strike at our military and they will exploit it to the fullest.
I think the comments of several posters here have revealed the irrational hate which is felt for american soldiers even in supposedly democracy-loving countries and serves to support that concern.

You didn't answer my question at all.

How do you know that none of these journalists were murdered by soldiers if no investigations were done?

Your criticisms of these investigations has nothing to do with my question. Try to stay on track.

As for your criticisms, you seem to believe they are inneffective, punish innocents, and they apparently give the enemy a foothold. Do you have any evidence for these allegations?

Why do you think that people from outside the US shouldn't be allowed to take part in investigations?

You didn't answer my question at all.

How do you know that none of these journalists were murdered by soldiers if no investigations were done?

Your criticisms of these investigations has nothing to do with my question. Try to stay on track.

As for your criticisms, you seem to believe they are inneffective, punish innocents, and they apparently give the enemy a foothold. Do you have any evidence for these allegations?

Why do you think that people from outside the US shouldn't be allowed to take part in investigations?


You're going into a partially circular argument here by asking me to answer something I've already answered. This seems to happen a lot on NSG when someone doesn't like a response.

People from outside the US should not be allowed to investigate our soldiers, because they invariably have ulterior motives in doing so, and cannot be expected to do so without bias. You could apply common sense to arrive at these conclusions, based on what has happened before.

To your first point, we really can't know if reporters were murdered unless someone investigates them. If that someone is a military tribunal, I'm fine with that. Posters here are hellbent on putting our soldiers in harms way by putting them in front of biased foreign courts.

A better question is, why is there even a suspicion of murder? In war, the only way anyone should really be accused of murder is if they force them to kneel on a street and execute them. Not if a ricocheting bullet, errant explosion, or standing up in the middle of a firefight and getting filled full of lead occurs.

You're going into a partially circular argument here by asking me to answer something I've already answered. This seems to happen a lot on NSG when someone doesn't like a response.

People from outside the US should not be allowed to investigate our soldiers, because they invariably have ulterior motives in doing so, and cannot be expected to do so without bias. You could apply common sense to arrive at these conclusions, based on what has happened before.

To your first point, we really can't know if reporters were murdered unless someone investigates them. If that someone is a military tribunal, I'm fine with that. Posters here are hellbent on putting our soldiers in harms way by putting them in front of biased foreign courts.

A better question is, why is there even a suspicion of murder? In war, the only way anyone should really be accused of murder is if they force them to kneel on a street and execute them. Not if a ricocheting bullet, errant explosion, or standing up in the middle of a firefight and getting filled full of lead occurs.

Do you want some Freedom Fries to go with that bullshit?

Do you want some Freedom Fries to go with that bullshit?Well, were an investigation to happen, by foreign court or not, and the soldiers were cleared of wrongdoing, would you be satisfied?

Well, were an investigation to happen, by foreign court or not, and the soldiers were cleared of wrongdoing, would you be satisfied?

If it managed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the journalists deserved somehow to be jailed, yes.

If it managed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the journalists deserved somehow to be jailed, yes.Isn't that what courts are supposed to do?

Isn't that what courts are supposed to do?

Yes. But when something is a judicial issue within the borders of a country, it falls to that country's courts to try it.

Yes. But when something is a judicial issue within the borders of a country, it falls to that country's courts to try it....And? I'm not saying the courts of that country should not try them, provided they maintain a mitigatory level of bias.

...And? I'm not saying the courts of that country should not try them, provided they maintain a mitigatory level of bias.

The problem is, Wuldani's claiming, without any basis whatsoever, that there's ALWAYS bias, unless they're tried in... military courts.

Y'know, by their buddies.

Y'know, by their buddies.The military does have a disturbing tendency to have its cake and eat it, too.

They'll screw one person, and save another. Hm...like Captain Charles McVay, for one. They most definitely screwed him.

Do you remember the CBS reporter who got lost during the first Desert Storm?

He was captured by Saddam, and held in prison until we won that one.

Guess who gave him directions...

Poor Bob Simon and his crew...

I've spent a great deal of time explaining to people that soldiers are not generally murderous and irrational bastards. It would be nice if in your bluster, you not try to lump other people have served in with such cowardly acts, thank you very much.

Most soldiers I know, if they had an issue with a journalist would deal with it honorably, not by tricking them into dangerous situations.

The military does have a disturbing tendency to have its cake and eat it, too.

They'll screw one person, and save another. Hm...like Captain Charles McVay, for one. They most definitely screwed him.

But McVay is an unusual exception in a military mentality that tends to save the brass and fuck the enlisted. See My Lai, Abu Ghraib, et al.

Actually, Heikoku, I'm glad you responded, because your vitriol speaks for itself and is one of the reasons we would never allow our soldiers to be prosecuted by an external entity.

What vitriol? The kind where you see anti-Americanism in anyone who disagrees with you?
You're going into a partially circular argument here by asking me to answer something I've already answered. This seems to happen a lot on NSG when someone doesn't like a response.

People from outside the US should not be allowed to investigate our soldiers, because they invariably have ulterior motives in doing so, and cannot be expected to do so without bias. You could apply common sense to arrive at these conclusions, based on what has happened before.

And the US is above ulterior motives?

To your first point, we really can't know if reporters were murdered unless someone investigates them. If that someone is a military tribunal, I'm fine with that. Posters here are hellbent on putting our soldiers in harms way by putting them in front of biased foreign courts.

Again, your finding anti-Americanism in anyone who disagrees with you. Believe it or not, people dont hate soldiers. They hate murderers.

But McVay is an unusual exception in a military mentality that tends to save the brass and fuck the enlisted. See My Lai, Abu Ghraib, et al.Wasn't an officer convicted in My Lai? My knowledge of My Lai is...limited.

What vitriol? The kind where you see anti-Americanism in anyone who disagrees with you?


And the US is above ulterior motives?



Again, your finding anti-Americanism in anyone who disagrees with you. Believe it or not, people dont hate soldiers. They hate murderers.

Bushevism is not dead, and Wuldani is one small example.

Wasn't an officer convicted in My Lai? My knowledge of My Lai is...limited.

William Calley was a Corporal. Hardly brass.

William Calley was a Corporal. Hardly brass.

Yeah, and there was more then one guy involved in My Lai.

William Calley was a Corporal. Hardly brass.And people absolutely hated it when he was convicted, it seems. Scapegoat? [/reading]

What vitriol? The kind where you see anti-Americanism in anyone who disagrees with you?

Thanks, KoL, I thought I annoyed ya. :D

Thanks, KoL, I thought I annoyed ya. :D

No. Not usually at least. Im actually fond of you.

Im actually fond of you.

Awww. :D

(Does that mean you're including me in your will/sending me Dr Pepper? Just askin') >.>

Awww. :D

(Does that mean you're including me in your will/sending me Dr Pepper? Just askin') >.>

I think I'm the only one in his will. I get it all.

I think I'm the only one in his will. I get it all.

Well, will YOU send me some Dr Pepper? :p

Well, will YOU send me some Dr Pepper? :p

Sure will. Just give me your address and be sure to drink it as soon as you receive it. Yup. That sounds like a diabol... I mean, excellent idea.

Sure will. Just give me your address and be sure to drink it as soon as you receive it. Yup. That sounds like a diabol... I mean, excellent idea.

*Shrugs*

Just pick a poison that DOESN'T interfere with the taste.

*Shrugs*

Just pick a poison that DOESN'T interfere with the taste.

Dude, I wouldn't poison you, even if Dr. Pepper tastes awesome with a little flavor of almond. I just might add some ingredients that would be fun to tell you about later.

Dude, I wouldn't poison you, even if Dr. Pepper tastes awesome with a little flavor of almond. I just might add some ingredients that would be fun to tell you about later.

Again, just make sure it doesn't change the taste. :p

(Nice reference BTW)

I think I'm the only one in his will. I get it all.

Its true. This is why I intend to spend/destroy everything I own before I die:D

Its true. This is why I intend to spend/destroy everything I own before I die:D

Okay, now let's focus on what's important:

About those Dr Peppers...

Okay, now let's focus on what's important:

About those Dr Peppers...

Ill just need your credit card number.

Ill just need your credit card number.

*Sound of 4 d10s rolling 4 times*

9876 3657 4789 3247!

*Sound of 4 d10s rolling 4 times*

9876 3657 4789 3247!

Watch, that'll turn out to be Neo Art or Jocobia's credit card number:D

Watch, that'll turn out to be Neo Art or Jocobia's credit card number:D

It's fine. You still don't know the expiration or that my zip code is 60440.

Wait... dammit.

It's fine. You still don't know the expiration or that my zip code is 60440.

Dont you live in Bowlingbrook? I could have found that out;)

It's fine. You still don't know the expiration or that my zip code is 60440.

We don't know that the expiration is what?

It's fine. You still don't know the expiration or that my zip code is 60440.You live in Illinois? How do you stand the...flat-ness, for lack of a better word?

We don't know that the expiration is what?I can't do it. I just...can't. /fail

Dont you live in Bowlingbrook? I could have found that out;)

There's actually more than one. For the record, I'm not one of those people who lives in fear that their identity will be stolen. I keep enough dispersed about that I'd be covered while the credit card companies reversed the charges.

You live in Illinois? How do you stand the...flat-ness, for lack of a better word.

Says the guy from Alabama...:p

You live in Illinois? How do you stand the...flat-ness, for lack of a better word.

By working in TN.

Seriously, I don't mind the flatness. I wouldn't mind if we'd have a governor who isn't a criminal once in a while, however.

We don't know that the expiration is what?

GF ruined it. I was going to "pretend" to be that dumb. I'd only be pretending, because obviously I wouldn't say or do something that dumb. Ever. No way. Not me.

Says the guy from Alabama...:pThe forest and hills, man! (We actually have a few spectacular cliffs where I'm at, it's awesome when you rappel down them. And there's a park with a hikeable canyon near here.)

Says the guy from Alabama...:p

AKA The State Where That Kind Of Thing Is Tolerated.

The forest and hills, man! (We actually have a few spectacular cliffs where I'm at, it's awesome when you rappel down them. And there's a park with a hikeable canyon near here.)

There are actually some great cliffs in IL. I used to do some rock climbing in So. IL when I would visit family at the college down there.

GF ruined it. I was going to "pretend" to be that dumb. I'd only be pretending, because obviously I wouldn't say or do something that dumb. Ever. No way. Not me.

Such as wh...

Ah, forget it, GF ruined it even for me. :p

Such as wh...

Ah, forget it, GF ruined it even for me. :p

Ruined what?

By working in TN.

Seriously, I don't mind the flatness. I wouldn't mind if we'd have a governor who isn't a criminal once in a while, however.Cool.

GF ruined it. Excellent. :D

AKA The State Where That Kind Of Thing Is Tolerated.Speaking of stereotypes....

There are actually some great cliffs in IL. I used to do some rock climbing in So. IL when I would visit family at the college down there.Rock climbing is fun, but I like going down more than up.

Such as wh...

Ah, forget it, GF ruined it even for me. :pSuccess!
Ruined what?Not success! ...Wait.

Speaking of stereotypes....

Hey, I was just quoting Weird Al.

Ruined what?

Our "Rain Man" impressions. :p

Hey, I was just quoting Weird Al.I'll sue yah, I'll take all your money!

Our "Rain Man" impressions. :p

You were doing Rain Man? I totally missed that.

There are actually some great cliffs in IL. I used to do some rock climbing in So. IL when I would visit family at the college down there.

Starved Rock. There is actually a lot of beautiful areas in Southern IL.


Nature is really the only redeeming quality of Southern IL.

You were doing Rain Man? I totally missed that.

No, I wasn't.

I'm not into men.

Or idiot-savants.

Except for you. >.>

Rock climbing is fun, but I like going down more than up.

I always suspected that about you. Selfish, selfish, you are.

Also, it's less excercise going down. Keep in mind that I was a person who worked out around five hours a day at the time. It was difficult to find excercises that would actually wear me out and rock climbing was pretty perfect for being one of the most dificult things I could find to do that was actually fun. Rapelling was fun, too, but, by design, it was pretty easy to do.

No, I wasn't.

I'm not into men.

Or idiot-savants.

Except for you. >.>

Flamer. Purported.

Flamer. Purported.

Because I called you a savant? :D

By working in TN.

Seriously, I don't mind the flatness. I wouldn't mind if we'd have a governor who isn't a criminal once in a while, however.
Oh come on, RIGHT NOW you have a governor who hasn't been indicted for anything, yet, so how come you aren't enjoying the moment :p

Oh come on, RIGHT NOW you have a governor who hasn't been indicted for anything, yet, so how come you aren't enjoying the moment :p

Because that governor is Pat Quinn.:p

Oh come on, RIGHT NOW you have a governor who hasn't been indicted for anything, yet, so how come you aren't enjoying the moment :p

Oh, I'm basking.

Because that governor is Pat Quinn.:p

Dude, you have to lower the bar at this point. Basically, if we can just get a governor who's not batshit crazy, it's an improvement.

I always suspected that about you. Selfish, selfish, you are. I'm refuse to apologize for my excesses. :$

Also, it's less excercise going down. Keep in mind that I was a person who worked out around five hours a day at the time. It was difficult to find excercises that would actually wear me out and rock climbing was pretty perfect for being one of the most dificult things I could find to do that was actually fun. Rapelling was fun, too, but, by design, it was pretty easy to do.I agree about rappelling being easy, and, yes, rock climbing does wear one out. :p

Dude, you have to lower the bar at this point. Basically, if we can just get a governor who's not batshit crazy, it's an improvement.Even if it was a Hollywood actor?

Even if it was a Hollywood actor?

Depends on the actor, but generally, yes.

Dude, you have to lower the bar at this point. Basically, if we can just get a governor who's not batshit crazy, it's an improvement.

Hell, Id take batshit crazy as long as theyre not committing federal felonies:p.

I just meant...Pat Quinn isnt very exciting. Itd be like being excited about John Kerry.

...People from outside the US should not be allowed to investigate our soldiers, because they invariably have ulterior motives in doing so, and cannot be expected to do so without bias. You could apply common sense to arrive at these conclusions, based on what has happened before.

Do you have any evidence for this claim?

To your first point, we really can't know if reporters were murdered unless someone investigates them.

So, when you claimed that investigations should not be done because the soldiers were innocent, you were wrong. Because you didn't know they were innocent, because they didn't do an investigation.

If that someone is a military tribunal, I'm fine with that. Posters here are hellbent on putting our soldiers in harms way by putting them in front of biased foreign courts.

You haven't shown that foreign courts are biased. Do you have any evidence to show that military tribunals are somehow less biased?

A better question is, why is there even a suspicion of murder? In war, the only way anyone should really be accused of murder is if they force them to kneel on a street and execute them. Not if a ricocheting bullet, errant explosion, or standing up in the middle of a firefight and getting filled full of lead occurs.

Yes, yes, yes. We are aware of your bias against investigating any deaths of civilians at the hands of soldiers. What we are trying to is debate if your bias has any merit. We have yet to find any.

Well, were an investigation to happen, by foreign court or not, and the soldiers were cleared of wrongdoing, would you be satisfied?

I think it would depend a lot on whether or not they were tried by other soldiers in the same army, as I think there would be an obvious bias in favour of the soldier. I would like to be wrong about this, so if there exists any evidence that such courts are not biased, i would like to see it.

Why do foreign reporters hate freedom?

Why do foreign reporters hate freedom?

You answered your own question.

So, when you claimed that investigations should not be done because the soldiers were innocent, you were wrong. Because you didn't know they were innocent, because they didn't do an investigation.

I believe that the claims are spurious and that the soldiers are innocent, but since my belief alone is not going to be enough to satisfy you, then I would allow for military tribunals as the lesser of several evils.

We have all seen foreign entities engage in kangaroo courts. If you can't accept that as a potential concern, the only alternative I would have is to publish a noveletta's worth of specific incidents of anti-military, anti-American bias and general legal travesties. I'm not going to do that, it's really not my responsibility to do so. I'm just trying to point out why some people's expectations are unrealistic.

I'm not going to do that, it's really not my responsibility to do so.

If you're making the claim, damn right it IS your responsibility to BACK IT UP.

I believe that the claims are spurious and that the soldiers are innocent, but since my belief alone is not going to be enough to satisfy you, then I would allow for military tribunals as the lesser of several evils.

We have all seen foreign entities engage in kangaroo courts. If you can't accept that as a potential concern, the only alternative I would have is to publish a noveletta's worth of specific incidents of anti-military, anti-American bias and general legal travesties. I'm not going to do that, it's really not my responsibility to do so. I'm just trying to point out why some people's expectations are unrealistic.

Translation: I have absolutely no evidence to back up my insane assertions that the rest of the world is out to get American soldiers, but Im going to call anyone who disagrees with me anti-American!

Intra-lingual Translation: I have absolutely no evidence to back up my insane assertions that the rest of the world is out to get American soldiers, but Im going to call anyone who disagrees with me anti-American!

Fixed for nitpicking by a professional of the area. Otherwise, good translation. ;)