Apperent US policy concerning journalists during upcomming planned Iraqi war

[Son Goku]

http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares.. ..They've been warned."

According to Ms. Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf War, the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information."

"I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs," she told Irish national broadcaster, Tom McGurk on the RTE1 Radio "Sunday Show."

Ms. Adie made the startling revelations during a discussion of media freedom issues in the likely upcoming war in Iraq. She also warned that the Pentagon is vetting journalists according to their stance on the war, and intends to take control of US journalists' satellite equipment --in order to control access to the airwaves.

Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported that the Pentagon has also threatened they: "may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side."

Transcript follows below.

" Now, Kate Adie, you join us from the BBC in London. Thank you very much for going to all this trouble on a Sunday morning to come and join us. I suppose you are watching with a mixture of emotions this war beginning to happen, because you are not going to be covering it."

" Oh I will be. And what actually appalls me is the difference between twelve years ago and now. I've seen a complete erosion of any kind of acknowledgment that reporters should be able to report as they witness."

" The Americans... and I've been talking to the Pentagon ...take the attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of information."

" I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks --that is the television signals out of... Bhagdad, for example-- were detected by any planes ...electronic media... mediums, of the military above Bhagdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists ..' Who cares! ' said.. [inaudible] .."

...

One can look at the rest of the transcript if they wish. There is a link to the show from here, though it looks long (over an hour) and I'm gathering they cover other topics as well as this one possibly...

http://www.radio1.ie/weekend/sundayshow/

[fastguy94416]

The main reason the US would fire on a non friendly satilite link... Lemme think...

Iraqi army? Seriously, the military has set up dedicated safe zones for journalists to broadcast. If a non combatant is out in the middle of the desert using a radio, one would be stupid to think that they would not be targeted during an all out ground war. Do you think a weapons officer would be able to tell the difference between a newsie doing an unsupervised, un scheduled report, or some iraqi recon truck telling his buddies where all the US tanks are?

I'm sure someone will jump right in to defend the reporters, but if a war happends, people get killed for doing dumb stuff.

[jnd3]

Some commentary on this from http://www.instapundit.com:

What the story is really about, though, is the Pentagon warning people who operate satellite uplinks in Iraq that they might be targeted during an attack.

Well, yeah. What makes these people think that they're entitled to immunity from what's going on around them in a battle zone? To an anti-radiation missile, a journalist's satellite uplink looks just like a military communications facility. Saying that the Pentagon is "threatening to kill independent journalists" who insist on operating one during a war is like saying the Pentagon is "threatening to kill" people by warning them that if they drive around in tanks, wearing Iraqi uniforms, they might be shot at during an attack. Duh.

My question is, do people who don't know the difference, or who know it and deliberately obscure it, deserve to be called "journalists" at all? Even if they work for the BBC?
Couldn't have said it better myself.

Sorry, but it's a bit of a stretch to say that the U.S. will intentionally target reporters in Iraq. Gimme a break. :rolleyes:

Cheers,
JND

[DaveW]

The media needs to be controlled during war time, imagine...

News Flash: CNN is reporting that a large troop movement is underway. Tens of thousands of American and British troops and equiping their gear, loading equipment and fueling tanks. Looks like the war is about to start.

Saddam: Oh really? General, let my troops know the Americans are coming.

CNN: Many of the men are eager to go, but some are concerned about the use of chemical weapons. CNN is getting reports that some units, particularly British, have not yet been issued their chemical suits.

Saddam: Thanks again CNN. General! instruct our chemical forces to target primarily the British troops.

(Days later) CNN: After thousands of casualities, mostly due to the surprise chemical attack on British troops, Bagdad is now surrounded and we are getting reports that US will be taking the city within the hour.

Saddam: Thats what they think. General! fetch the small pox.



This is exactly the sort of retarded reporting that would go on. Reporters are dangerous fanatics who would put thousands of lives in danger just to get a story.

[saturnotaku]

Originally posted by DaveW
Reporters are dangerous fanatics who would put thousands of lives in danger just to get a story.

Not this reporter. I'll hide behind the bushes, thank you very much.

[ASCI Blue]

After reading about a friends infantry buddy killing women and children for 'points' who can blame the Pentagon? They're not about to let it out that the infantry are slaughtering civilians for fun.

[UDawg]

Originally posted by ASCI Blue
After reading about a friends infantry buddy killing women and children for 'points' who can blame the Pentagon? They're not about to let it out that the infantry are slaughtering civilians for fun.


:confused:

[Kain]

Originally posted by saturnotaku
Not this reporter. I'll hide behind the bushes, thank you very much. More like, "I'll hide behind Bush's." :p

[LiquidX]

Not this reporter. I'll hide behind the bushes, thank you very much.

LOL -so how will you report?

You know I bet Saddam is watching CNN and the BBC very closely..just for crap like this. Finding out where every target is with his T.V....excuse me satellite T.V.

[outriding9800]

i think this is a more complicated issue than you think.

on one side you have the military who doesn't want the enemy to be given any advanced notice of what is going on ( i dont blame them )

and on the other i dont think this should be another gulf war where all the news was given to reporters by the military and you only saw a one sided issue.

i for one would like to see what is really going on. i dont care if it is day old news but it is unfiltered and i think that would be the best alternative.

[LORD-eX-Bu]

Originally posted by ASCI Blue
After reading about a friends infantry buddy killing women and children for 'points' who can blame the Pentagon?

Yeah, probably just more disgruntled liars such as yourself:o