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

a reply to: beezzer

Not even 2 years ago I posted a thread aboutarmed drones flying over the US that got tossed in the hoax bin.
www.abovetopsecret.com...
"Jailing journalists!" ha ha,
You conspiracy loonies will believe anything.

We'll be waiting for those apologies that will never come.

a reply to: infolurker

Yeah, so? It's the military's job to fight belligerents. Belligerents who are not members of the armed forces or a levee en masse are unprivileged belligerents. Did you think journalists were free to engage in hostilities, and not be subject to attack or punishment, just because they are journalists?

originally posted by: TrueBrit
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.

This is a very good point. Military leaders will almost always advocate for war (just watch Fox News interviews with generals). It means more money, higher budgets, job security, etc.

a reply to: infolurker

Does this mean they're finally going take Bill O' Reilly and Geraldo?

Nothing says belligerent like these two.

a reply to: TinfoilTP

Are people freaking out like this is some policy for civilian homeland during times of peace?

When's the last time there was a time of peace?

These are broad measures for a very minute problem.

a reply to: infolurker

Does this have something to do with Bryce Williams..

a reply to: infolurker

Why can you never seem to post actual source material when you make these bold statements?

This is a link to a radical website, with information from RT (which has long been banned as a reliable source from ATS) talking 'about' another website that references an AP report about a document with no link.

Posts like this are just as dangerous as posts going the other direction.

When I took journalism courses, this was called sensationalism and yellow journalism.

This is ridiculous. I'm flagging this post as well.

Nothing in any of these articles provide any link to actual source material.

originally posted by: TinfoilTP
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.

Yes I do, because what they are doing is, planning for events, such as Syria and backing Isil, harming free and equal people, and then lying through their teeth and targetting any journalist that goes against their stories, AND IT WILL NOT HAPPEN. THEY ALL NEED TO BE ARRESTED BY THOUSANDS AND MILLIONS OF AWAKE AND REFUSING TO OBEY CITIZENS. THE WORLD IS INDEED ON EVERYONE'S SHOULDERS, VICTIMS ARE FALLING WORLD WIDE TO THIS MASSIVE CRIME AGAINST THE FREE AND EQUAL PEOPLE, AND YOU CAN'T ENDORSE IT, BECAUSE ITS ALL A TEST, YOU CAN'T LET CHILDREN AND YOUR SOUL FAMILY DOWN. STOP THEM.

BTW, why was Afghanistan attacked and occupied? Because Taliban was hiding ObL? Taliban offered ObL extradition if supplied with evidence of ObL part in 911 attacks. Now if I'm independent journalist from third party country in war zone like Afghanistan was(is?), am I in risk of being shuffled to Gitmo just for reporting on what I see?

This appears to be geared toward journalists that accompany a military unit while operating in the field. If I'm not mistaken, a journalist that is permitted to accompany a unit is under the command of that unit leader. If this is the case, then I find it reasonable for their to be a clause to shut up any reporter that would compromise the unit or their mission. I don't think it would be much appreciated to have a journalist standing on a rock giving away their position for a few camera shots.

originally posted by: emsed1
a reply to: infolurker

Why can you never seem to post actual source material when you make these bold statements?

This is a link to a radical website, with information from RT (which has long been banned as a reliable source from ATS) talking 'about' another website that references an AP report about a document with no link.

Posts like this are just as dangerous as posts going the other direction.

When I took journalism courses, this was called sensationalism and yellow journalism.

Is the Associated Press a good source for you?

www.usnews.com...

By WENDY BENJAMINSON, Associated Press

WASHINGTON (AP) — New Defense Department guidelines allow commanders to punish journalists and treat them as "unprivileged belligerents" if they believe journalists are sympathizing or cooperating with the enemy.

The Law of War manual, updated to apply for the first time to all branches of the military, contains a vaguely worded provision that military commanders could interpret broadly, experts in military law and journalism say. Commanders could ask journalists to leave military bases or detain journalists for any number of perceived offenses.

Army Lt. Col. Joe Sowers, a Pentagon spokesman, said it was not the Defense Department's intent to allow an overzealous commander to block journalists or take action against those who write critical stories.

"The Department of Defense supports and respects the vital work that journalists perform," Sowers said. "Their work in gathering and reporting news is essential to a free society and the rule of law." His statement added that the manual is not policy and not "directive in nature."

But Ken Lee, an ex-Marine and military lawyer who specializes in "law of war" issues and is now in private practice, said it was worrisome that the detention of a journalist could come down to a commander's interpretation of the law.

If a reporter writes an unflattering story, "does this give a commander the impetus to say, now you're an unprivileged belligerent? I would hope not," Lee said.

"I'm troubled by the label 'unprivileged belligerents,' which seems particularly hostile," said Kathleen Carroll, AP's executive editor. "It sounds much too easy to slap that label on a journalist if you don't like their work, a convenient tool for those who want to fight wars without any outside scrutiny."

The history of war is replete with tension between military commanders and the journalists who cover them.

originally posted by: emsed1
This is ridiculous. I'm flagging this post as well.

Nothing in any of these articles provide any link to actual source material.

What do you consider a good source? Associated Press, Huffington Post?

www.huffingtonpost.com...

a reply to: TinfoilTP

I suppose some responses ignore the subtle details, though there is a war in the U.S. "homeland" as well. In fact there has been a war against the civilian population for a long time in the U.S. and around the world. The difference nowadays is that we are aware of it and can communicate with others.

What it really comes down to is that we live in a world similar to the movie the matrix. Most people (in certain countries) and world events are controlled or guided by a "power elite". They have an entire army of flesh and bone "robots" (both human and animal) that that are controlled using highly advanced technology that can deliver information directly to their brains without the use of electronics. Also, the reverse can occur they can use both humans and animals to gather information by placing either implants or by hiding sensors in nearly every piece of electronics.

a reply to: Unity_99

I agree with your position, most wars in the modern era, in fact probably most significant military operations in the 20th century have been for the most part guided by the "power elite".

I wouldn't be surprised if the entire cold war was simply a ruse to distract people and the war on terrorism a ruse to get people to support, what has come to be, a nearly complete subversion of our rights.

What the "power elite" fear most are UFOs and ETs, they can't control them or match them so all they can do is simply try to control the world's response to them, hence the massive spying and "gangstalking".

a reply to: infolurker

Panic control here.

With how much the military has been gutted over the last decade I doubt they could ever pose a real problem to national citizens in the US. You have 300 armed civilians per every 1 armed active duty personnel. And that 1 man is working with a shoestring budget and needs clearance from 3 chains of command.

After Reagan left office the military should have staged a coop. Many of my service buds and I were talking about it back in the day and it seemed like an attractive proposition. We could have taken over the country, ousted corrupt political leaders, and ended the Fed. The military was massive and well-funded. But that time has passed, and Congress and the presidents thereafter sought to cut it down and tie it up with bureaucracy. And very intentionally axed all the great generals.

Most military personnel hate the federal government, in particular the DoD sham. They just love their countrymen.

originally posted by: infolurker
Well, so much for a free press?
. . .
US Military Now Has Authority to “Capture and Punish” Journalists Who they Deem “Belligerent”

Sounds a bit like how China is treating stock sellers lately. Calling them criminals, saboteurs, arresting and punishing them. And the dog is made to understand he wasn't actually free, and never will be. Pick any color so long as it's black.

There is no such thing, at this date of the world's history, in America, as an independent press. . . . The business of the journalist is to destroy truth, to lie outright, to pervert, to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon, and to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. You know it and I know it and what folly is this toasting an independent press? We are the tools and vassals for rich men behind the scenes. We are jumping jacks, they pull the strings and we dance. Our talents, our possibilities and our lives are all the property of other men. We are intellectual prostitutes.

-- John Swinton, former chief of staff at the New York Times, in a toast delivered to a farewell banquet in his honor at the New York Press Club in 1953.

a reply to: infolurker

I guess it has begun...

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: infolurker

What the hell, dude.

Detaining journalists?
Armed drones?

What the hell!

.. if beezer is panicking, you know what that means. How much you wanna bet ATS will be a target? Or how many of us? Welcome to the new world order.

To everyone else who ridiculed those exposing this, well hate to say we told you so.

Right on time too for possible events in September too.

Im not gonna lie, this thing is scary, but at this point, i can only hope I be among-st the first to go, since... living through what is coming will literally be hell.

Sigh.. and just like that, liberty died.

originally posted by: EternalSolace
This appears to be geared toward journalists that accompany a military unit while operating in the field. If I'm not mistaken, a journalist that is permitted to accompany a unit is under the command of that unit leader. If this is the case, then I find it reasonable for their to be a clause to shut up any reporter that would compromise the unit or their mission. I don't think it would be much appreciated to have a journalist standing on a rock giving away their position for a few camera shots.

I hope, really hope, you are right on this one.

Really .. this headline is confusing like hell....

It's a military handbook how to act in Warzones - not even a law .. not even a Military law. A freaking handbook with guidelines.

Stupid fear mongering journalism.

a reply to: beezzer

The sky is falling!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

But then again, I we talking about America? or some communist country somewhere else.