Military Now Has Authority to “Capture and Punish” Journalists Who they Deem “Belligerent”

Well, so much for a free press? This is a very disturbing story to say the least. I do understand that true "enemy combatants" could pass themselves off as Journalists but I can also see this abused to pretty much target any journalists for about any reason they decide to make up at the time.

thefreethoughtproject.com...

US Military Now Has Authority to “Capture and Punish” Journalists Who they Deem “Belligerent”

Washington, D.C. — Newly adopted Department of Defense guidelines will allow military commanders to “punish journalists” and treat them as “unprivileged belligerents.”

The DoD’s 1,180 page Law of War Manual outlines provisions for military commanders to violate the rights of journalists who they disagree with in vaguely written legal speak.

In June, the Free Thought Project first reported on this ominous manual. However, it has been updated now, and its use delegated to all branches of the military.

a reply to: infolurker

I think this is mainly for the blogging epidemic that is occurring with everyone trying to direct traffic to their own sites.

But it can be misused unfortunately.

a reply to: infolurker

What the hell, dude.

Detaining journalists?
Armed drones?

What the hell!

a reply to: beezzer
they have a good introduction to that story as well:

No Longer a Conspiracy Theory, First State Legalizes Weaponized Drones for Cops
thefreethoughtproject.com...

Nothing says “police state” quite like unmanned aerial vehicles patrolling the sky ready to deploy 80,000 volts to the nearest protester or dose entire crowds with chemical weapons.

The idea of weaponized drones has long been a dystopian, yet fictional idea. However, thanks to House Bill 1328, in North Dakota, this police state hell from above is now a horrid reality.

Thanks to a police union lobbyist, the idea of police using drones for “less than lethal” weapons is now written into North Dakota law.

It's the NDAA that allows these policies. You were warned.

Oh, hey, we've had that in my country a few decades ago.

...during the military dictatorship... so, uhm... good luck with that...

This is for war zones when military commanders will be....at war.
Are people freaking out like this is some policy for civilian homeland during times of peace?

Law of War manual made by the Department of Defense.

There is probably a secret service manual somewhere that says shoot to kill in it somewhere, que more freak outs.

Do you think enemy intel gatherers should be allowed to pin a journalism badge on and commence to reconnoitering in a war zone?

In the old days they just shot spies on the spot, blindfold and quickly made firing squad. This is going soft on them.

a reply to: TinfoilTP
With the War on Drugs, isn't the entire world now considered a war zone?

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TinfoilTP
With the War on Drugs, isn't the entire world now considered a war zone?

Haha, very funny.

There is a war on poverty too.

Political labels are not military wars.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TinfoilTP
With the War on Drugs, isn't the entire world now considered a war zone?

We've got the war on poverty and the war on terror also.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: TinfoilTP
With the War on Drugs, isn't the entire world now considered a war zone?

We've got the war on poverty and the war on terror also.

Military war zones, the war on terror can create military war zones like in Afghanistan. The war on poverty won't ever see any military battle zones, it is strictly a pull on heart strings that sees lip service when votes are needed.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Like everything else, the "law" won't be used.

It'll be abused.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Like everything else, the "law" won't be used.

It'll be abused.

What Law?
There is no Law here for civilians to abuse.

When's the last time you seen a four star general directing traffic on a street corner?

For a very long time, the Geneva Convention no longer serves.

Prisoners under the Geneva Convention have rights that do not include being carted off to Gitmo and tortured.

Yet, when one of the US soldiers is mistreated, the general public scream loudly.

As you sow, so shall you reap. The US has become that which it is supposed to fight against.

Step by incremental step. Today it is journalists, tomorrow it will be the families of 'detainees.'

Eventually it will be We The People. Actually, it already is!

The US needs a reset. Where is that button, oh yeah, it is imbedded in the Second Amendment.

P

a reply to: TinfoilTP

You laugh that off, but ignore reality.

There are "boots on the ground" throughout the Americas, including our homeland, to combat this "War on Drugs".

You call it a political name, I call it how I see it.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Like everything else, the "law" won't be used.

It'll be abused.

What Law?
There is no Law here for civilians to abuse.

When's the last time you seen a four star general directing traffic on a street corner?

Tinfoil, there's nothing enumerated in the Constitution giving
the military lawmaking powers.. unless they've got blue tights
hidden somewhere with S's on them. So where's the Law of War
Manual from? It seems these Pentagon guys are seeing no problem
abusing the common English -- why can't we?

And you're right about Patton... he was only a LtGen (3) when he
had to untie the muddy tank knot. I saw that country movie.

originally posted by: infolurker

US Military Now Has Authority to “Capture and Punish” Journalists Who they Deem “Belligerent”

This news will have Trump overflowing with psyched-ness. "Go back to Univision... I mean, jail and torture that man!"

a reply to: infolurker

Maybe they are getting ready for another war and don't want it televised like the Iraq war and every war since.

I don't know if anyone even remembers the days before the Iraq war where you couldn't go into war zones with troops.
It was highly unusual. Then the Iraq war fired up and journalists went in with the troops, and honestly, when you are at war, you don't want or should need people reporting on every move you make.

It is dangerous for the troops involved. The enemy knows what you are doing then, and against a real enemy, such as say, China or Russia in the event of a war, you cannot have people reporting what you are doing to the public because it takes away from many aspects of fighting and winning.

With Iraq and after, the press was allowed in, and honestly, that is a dumb move if it is a seriously deadly and dangerous adversary.

But that is just what I take away from it.
The press got spoiled on transparent wars.

originally posted by: derfreebie

originally posted by: TinfoilTP

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: TinfoilTP

Like everything else, the "law" won't be used.

It'll be abused.

What Law?
There is no Law here for civilians to abuse.

When's the last time you seen a four star general directing traffic on a street corner?

Tinfoil, there's nothing enumerated in the Constitution giving
the military lawmaking powers.. unless they've got blue tights
hidden somewhere with S's on them. So where's the Law of War
Manual from? It seems these Pentagon guys are seeing no problem
abusing the common English -- why can't we?

And you're right about Patton... he was only a LtGen (3) when he
had to untie the muddy tank knot. I saw that country movie.

First of all the Rules of War are not Laws.

The Rules of War conform to treaties that were approved by the Legislative branch. The President has the obligation to seek the advice of his appointees, which include the Secretary of Defense on down the chain of command including the DoD, which writes the rules of war which takes legal council from all branches of govt.

Treaties are made by the executive branch, approved by the Senate, then once enacted are under the scrutiny of the Judicial branch.
The Senate cannot create a treaty, The President cannot pass a treaty and the Judicial branch cannot stop a treaty from being enacted. The Senate can fail to ratify a Treaty by not having enough votes, The President can refuse to make a treaty, The Judicial can strike down a treaty after it is enacted if found unconstitutional.

The DoD cannot wage war that illegally breaks treaties. Thus the need for Rules of War, which is ever changing.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I think the issue here is, that unless the press are immune from the sort of treatment allowed for by this policy, that the legality of military action cannot be independently verified.

I would not trust the motivations of members of the MIC, because they have a conflict of interest when it comes to starting wars. They make money from war. Lots of it. So there have to be checks and balances, like a Free Press, in order to ensure as far as possible, that any and all BS that can be identified with regard to motivation on the part of military leaders, is bought to light, whether the military like it or not.