"New US Laws of War Manuel and Journalism" Topic

The US Pentagon has just published a new manual on the laws of war. In that manual it states that journalists are no longer to be considered civilians and protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Rather they are to be considered "unprivileged belligerents" despite the fact that they are unarmed. This designation not only applies to journalists imbedded with enemy forces but also to independent journalists and possibly even friendly journalists. Such people can be targeted on a battlefield and killed or detained indefinitely without legal representation or review in direct contravention of Article 75 of the First Geneva Convention.
So now we can shoot, explode, stab and cut journalists and TV crews in our wargames legally but not poison them or kill them with asphyxiating gas! I have some journalists/TV reporting crews from Rebel Minis and now they are fair game. Has the world gone mad or am I the insane one?
link
Cheers and ruthless gaming.
Rod "Starry Night" Robertson.

Oops, I spelled manual wrong in the title. Sorry.

Information is power. Cyberwar and Lawfare have become important elements in modern warfare. Reporters give away secrets of operations and techniques. This is the Information Age, if you don't manage information, you are losing the war.

Mike Bunkermeister Creek
Bunker Talk blog

Reading the details in the article, I think that it is poorly written, but not necessarily wrong. Your characterization is completely wrong--journalists are not universally considered to be "unprivileged belligerents." Instead, it's possible for someone who self-identifies as a journalist to be acting in a manner which renders them an unprivileged belligerent. If an official of the Islamic State accompanies IS forces onto the battlefield for the purpose of producing news/Tweets/propaganda/whatever, that person may be mixing the roles of journalist and combatant; in doing so, they sacrifice any protection they may have as a non-belligerent.

So of the other definitions are pretty obvious: journalist may be members of enemy armed forces. Official U.S military reporters, motion picture teams, and the like, from at least WWII through Vietnam, were simply members of the military assigned to those tasks.

This is clearly not a declaration of open season on journalist. It clearlty is the result of stupidities on the part of many people in producing a document that could so easily be misconstrued, mischaracterized, and had quotes pulled out of context.

emckinney:
You are right. I was not careful enough in my wording. It is too late to edit it so I amend my statement as follows:

The US Pentagon has just published a new manual on the laws of war. In that manual it states that journalists are no longer necessarily to be considered civilians and protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention. Rather they can be considered "unprivileged belligerents" despite the fact that they are unarmed non combatants. This designation not only applies to military and nonmilitary journalists imbedded with enemy forces but also to independent journalists and possibly even friendly journalists. Such people can be targeted on a battlefield and killed or detained indefinitely without legal representation or review in direct contravention of Article 75 of the First Geneva Convention.
So now we can shoot, explode, bomb, stab and cut journalists and TV crews in our wargames legally but not poison them or kill them with asphyxiating gas! I have some journalists/TV reporting crews from Rebel Minis and now they are fair game. Has the world gone mad or am I the insane one?
link
Cheers and ruthless gaming.
Rod "Starry Night" Robertson.

If they're doing PR work for ISIS, the Taliban, or other jihadi groups, then I'm all for the change.

Covering news stories overseas, in general, is a bit different, though to those doing the observing/shooting, I suspect it may not always be clear which distinction applies, especially when viewed from several hundred yards away, in the midst of a combat zone.

The rise of the robot drone photographer/journalist is not far off, I suspect.

This allows the military to flash-bang the press when they get annoying…which is not necessarily a bad thing.

Don't forget if papparazi pass a certain line at Area 51….BOOM!

It's ironic that in certain circles it's popular to attack the press while a free press is central to our freedom (even if they're annoying at times).

I don't believe people taking that position are really thinking about the alternative that they're supporting: government control and suppression of the press, the sort of thing that happens under autocratic regimes.

The rise of the robot drone photographer/journalist is not far off, I suspect.

That's already happening. Some state governments, under the control of corporations, have imposed laws that prevent American reporters and American citizens from entering agricultural and industrial facilities for the purpose of exposing threats to America.

Absent from those laws are rules covering drones, at least for now. So some American reporters are using drones to gather video and sensor data (e.g. air and water quality). Some American drones are being shot down by corporate security forces so they often transmit the data in real time. The video often shows the security forces shooting at the drone before it goes down.

I guess we are going back to the way General Sherman treated reporters.

VIS, I may agree with you, but you've veered over the politics line. I suggest that you delete your posts, or request to have them deleted, before you get Dawghoused (I'm not reporting you, just making a suggestion).

I think you did veer away from the the OP (reporters on the battlefield) to a very different issue with reporters.

I believe that my comments are directly relevant to the OP's comments. The issue raised by the OP is one of press restrictions in the name of the GWOT.

Remember, under the Orwellian "Patriot Act", any president may, without judicial review, designate anyone an "enemy combatant". This includes US citizens. At that point they're subject to the rules cited by the OP.

As we've seen with the militarization of US police, journalists are frequently arrested without cause for merely covering police brutality. Same goes for America citizens filming police misconduct. In some ways, DoD is BEHIND local law enforcement in how it treats the press.

It's all connected.

In a day and age in which any twit with an iPhone, a blog page and a true believers point of view can proclaim themself a journalist and in theory avail themselves of protection as such, it is probably sensible to attempt to clarify for the folks on the sharp end, a way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

So, if a journalist who is unarmed, happens to witness and record something that happens in the open on a battlefield and publishes or otherwise disseminates that information, with or without bias to the detriment of the USA, they are a hostile belligerent? Then, if later captured by American troops, that journalist should loose the protections of being a civilian under Article 75 of the First Geneva Convention and several articles of the Fourth Geneva Convention, for what they openly reported? Why? If anyone who is an unarmed, open witnesses (not a spy) to war is now potentially a unprivileged belligerent then there are no civilians. If simply witnessing and reporting military events with a POV that is contrary to the thinking of another nation's military strips you of your basic human rights then something is very wrong here.
The fact that any "twit with an IPhone, a blog page and a true believers point of view" can be problematic for the military does not justify stripping rights from NON-COMBATANTS!
So now we're going to let the state declare anyone it deems problematic to be Lord Ha-ha and hang'em high without legal jurisdiction? Information may be power, but does that mean the military and the state it supports has the right to a monopoly on information and it's control? The military and the state already have a near monopoly on coercive force. Do we want them to have a monopoly on the dissemination of information too? A journalist has an obligation to report what they have witnessed through the lense of their point of view. The military has the obligation to fight conflicts. The reporter should not be considered a participant in war, but a witness to war. If journalists can be construed as unprivileged belligerents than all in the fifth estate could become Anwar Al-Alaki's and in the worst case targeted for assassination.
I get the sense that somewhere in the dark recesses of the Pentagon that the spirits of Franz Kafka and Joseph Goebbels are consultants on this new code.
Rod Robertson.

I suspect this is a very specific reaction to the Islamic radical's way of war. For them, reporters and cartoonists are targets.

Faced with such an enemy, your choice is either take the high ground, or threaten to treat their reporters in the same manner.

Right now, the threat is kind of an empty one — we're going to have to capture one first.

It used to be "Who watches the watchers?"

Soon I guess it'll be "Who watches at all?"

In a day and age in which any twit with an iPhone, a blog page and a true believers point of view can proclaim themself a journalist and in theory avail themselves of protection as such, it is probably sensible to attempt to clarify for the folks on the sharp end, a way to separate the wheat from the chaff.

The alternative is what authoritarian regimes such as ISIS do: limit journalism to state sponsored/condoned sources only. So I'd have to disagree with you there.

I prefer the old school American approach: freedom of the press. And if technology has made it easier for more people to engage in journalism at a lower cost (ie the cost of a computer or smart phone), that's great! Freedom to compete is another American value.

And let's not forget that just because a corporation has more money, more gear, and more staff that doesn't make them better journalists. Just look at Judith Miller and most cable "news" to see that being a "credentialed" reporter means nothing wrt journalistic accuracy or quality.

As far as helping those on the sharp end is concerned, there is definitely a gray area there and it's not really addresed by these new rules.

When does a reporter become an enemy agent spying on you? American and other western reporters have been accused of serving as spies, in most cases unjustly but in some cases accurately (shocking!). Sorting out spies from journalists in non-combat situations is probably above the pay grade of most small unit leaders.

At the tactical level when is a guy with a cell phone a guy with a cell phone, a journalist or an enemy spotter? Those are really tough calls often faced by our soldiers at the tactical level. And in that case, in the context of an active insurgency during a battle, I'd have to give the benefit of the doubt to the soldiers since it's their lives are on the line. But they should also be trained to understand that with that authority to make a decision comes responsibility and consequences for careless (not reasonable) decisions.

Meiczyslaw:
Why capture hostile journalists when you can declare them "unprivileged belligerents" and drone-strike them? No messy trials or tribunals and no need to hold them off-shore to avoid US procedural law and due process. And the target can even be an American citizen if he/she is not on American territory.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod….you do like to slant topics, twist words, and start arguments. What the definition does is point out that journalists can come from a number of backgrounds and organizations. At the same time, terrorists could use a journalist's cover to get close to a target….in no way does it mean open season on journalists.

I agree that the term, "unprivileged belligerents," is painful, but all this means is that a terrorist posing as a journalist does not get the same privileges as a legitimate journalist.

@Ray: Rod does have a point, though: How hard would it be to declare anyone taking cellphone video to be a "terrorist posing as a journalist"?

This is a really troubling point.

At a tactical level, the easy assumption is that anyone holding a cellphone is an enemy lookout. You can guess the next step after that. A more nuanced action would be to detain all individuals taking cellphone video "for their safety and for the safety of the troops," letting them go after the operation has ended. Obviously, the last option is to just ignore the folks with the cameras.

Raylev3:
The question that I would ask is, "What is a 'legitimate journalist' and who gets to make that decision?" If a person is not a combatant then they should not be treated like a combatant. Should armed forces be able to detain, prosecute or perhaps intentionally kill 'civilians' who are workers in the arms industry outside of combat? Should farmers who grow food to feed an enemy's armed forces or irregular forces be in legal or mortal jeopardy? What about doctors and nurses who give aid and comfort to the enemy? Can they be punished or killed for administering medical attention to the enemy? If a mythical Ayman el-Baddie, elusive terrorist and mastermind of some dreadful attack, is laying in a bed in a crowded hospital, are the medical staff who attend him fair game as 'unprivileged belligerents"?
I know these are annoying questions, but if people don't ask them, perhaps in a slanted way, then how are citizens supposed to make up their minds and who is to stop government and military lawyers from building legal justifications for illegal acts? Do the American people really want this or is it being done quietly, using media stealth to make it a fait accompli? It was not so long ago that the this kind of legal justification coupled with public complicity/indifference was used to support enhanced interrogation methods, extraordinary rendition, secret torture prisons in foreign states and most recently the targeted assassination of American citizens on foreign soil.
So yes, I am slanting my arguments and I am argumentative because military law is quite literally a matter of life and death for both combatants and non combatants. When we begin to blur the lines between the two, then tyranny and misery will surely follow. Yes, I like doing this, not because I want to annoy people or hear myself pontificate, but because in democracies we have the right, the duty and the honour to discuss such matters and to provoke thought and debate on prickly issues and potentially dangerous ideas, even if such debate is divisive and annoys some here. The US military is subordinate to the civilian power and that civilian power is elected by an informed electorate. In order for this to work and in order to have responsible government, the citizens must be informed. Citizens of democracies must be skeptical and suspicious of the state and the military, even while respecting and honoring those who volunteer and sacrifice to do public and military service. To question the wisdom of some military law is not an attack on the military or the state, it is not an attempt to degrade or diminish the job that they do. It is the responsibility of free people to safe-guard their rights and freedoms from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
Rod Robertson.

Ray, the problem is figuring out the "terrorist posing as a journalist". I think it needs to be contextual.

In Bing West's most recent book on the Afghan war he describes this problem. In a land largely devoid of landlines some people use satellite phones, walkie talkies, and cell phones. And since the bad guys dress the same way as civilians you can't know if a guy with comms is a civilian, a journalist, an insurgent, or even a civilian being FORCED by the bad guys to serve as a spotter or lookout.

So if troops on patrol see a guys with comms they might approach him (and knowing that the bad guys use such fellows as bait to draw troops into ambushes or IEDs). They don't kill them on sight as these new rules appear to authorize.

But if they're in the middle of a firefight, they're taking mortar fire, and they see a "civilian" with a comms device observing them they take him out.

It's just another step towards out Orwellian future in which being a freedom loving patriot means supporting big government spying (which is now called "eavesdropping") and torture is called "enhanced interrogation techniques" (unless done by the Japanese in WWII in which case it's called a war crime and we executed people for it).

Regardess, no matter what happens or is said or is in print … Pretty sure no US or Western troops will be shooting any journalists. They may be too busy actually doing their job/mission. And trying to keep the journalists safe and out of the way. And at the same time accomplish their mission without getting KIA'd … The journalist wants a "juicy" story … the Soldier, Sailor, Airman or Marine just wants to get their job done and not go home in a bodybag.

Rod….you do like to slant topics, twist words, and start arguments.

Sometimes it seems a bit like that ray. But in general he is a good guy … just sometimes a bit annoying it appears … to some …

Getting to the basics a reporter is anyone who recounts events. Just as a journalist is anyone who record events.
Thus there would be no civilians – as they all are potential reporters.
In the proposed classification who in the military decides the classification?
Can it be done post humorous?
In the extreme is this just not Free Fire Zones – where anyone not positively identified as friendly is assumed to be the enemy.

"Rather they can be considered "unprivileged belligerents" despite the fact that they are unarmed non combatants"

Rod's characterization is factually incorrect. He has twisted the link to make it say something it does not.

We can safely dismiss the rest of Rod's assertions as constructed on sand, and not worth engaging.

Tuscaloosa:
You may chose to dismiss me 'safely' and that is fine, but I don't think journalists would feel so assured. While I hesitate to cite RT News, which is far from objective in this matter, the professor of Journalism they interview from Georgetown University has some interesting comments. However, I warn everyone that the clip includes footage of the deaths of two Reuters reporters in 2007 (the Wikileaks "Collateral Murder" Video) so please feel free to disregard the link if you feel so inclined.

YouTube link

From the article which I sited at the start of this thread comes the following quote which seems to state what I have stated:

Lumping terrorist writers with bona fide scribes prompted one officer to call the paragraph "odd." A civilian lawyer who opines on war crime cases called the wording "an odd and provocative thing for them to write."

In 1977 the status of all journalists was clarified in a protocol added to the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

Measures of protection for journalists
Article 79 [ Link ] -- Measures of protection for journalists

1. Journalists engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict shall be considered as civilians within the meaning of Article 50, paragraph 1 [ Link ] .

2. They shall be protected as such under the Conventions and this Protocol, provided that they take no action adversely affecting their status as civilians, and without prejudice to the right of war correspondents accredited to the armed forces to the status provided for in Article 4 A (4) [ Link ] of the Third Convention.

3. They may obtain an identity card similar to the model in Annex II of this Protocol. This card, which shall be issued by the government of the State of which the journalist is a national or in whose territory he resides or in which the news medium employing him is located, shall attest to his status as a journalist.

The Pentagon is seemingly disregarding international law which The US Government signed onto in this regard.

Rod Robertson

I'm pretty sure that the 1977 addition to the Convention that Rod just quoted was presuming the Journalists to be independent of the conflicting parties.

What do you do when the journalists are NOT independent of the conflicting parties? When the journalists work-product is used by the conflicting parties to either recruit more (unlawful) combatants or as other propaganda, does that journalist still avoid being a combatant?

While I'm still very bothered by this change in policy, I think what the DoD is getting at is that "official DoD propagandists" (ie, military photogs/writers) are considered to be combatants because they are members of the military. But the "official non-state actor propagandists" have all the protections of civilians under the Geneva conventions because they are not a member of a national military, even though they are acting as if they were a member of a national military (as a combat cameraman or whatever).

Lion in the Stars:
I guess it boils down to the answers to these three questions:
a) Is the production and dissemination of propaganda a criminal act/ war crime during wartime?
b) Is the production and dissemination of propaganda a criminal act/war crime during hostilities when war has not been declared?
c) Is the production and dissemination of propaganda a criminal act during peacetime if that propaganda harms the interests of the state.

Would the new laws allow the US military to target and potentially kill accredited journalists who are working for a hostile nation's media system as was the case in Serbia? The US/NATO targeted and destroyed both Serbian state and privately owned TV stations in the RTS Building to stop them from broadcasting propaganda and bolstering Serbian morale. These attacks killed journalists and triggered wide-spread condemnation in 1999.

It is interesting that the US military and judiciary is willing to argue that some journalists can be considered unprivileged belligerants while at the same time arguing that CIA drone pilots and quasi-military operatives on the ground who are members of a civilian agency, who wear no uniform and who use weapons in conflicts are not unprivileged belligerents but rather privileged belligerents.
In my opinion what this really boils down to is an attempt to criminalize anybody who openly opposes US policy or military action and supports the enemies of the US non violently.
Rod Robertson.

The roots of this change lie in this draconian legislation from 2010 and you can see how the US intends to treat unprivileged belligerents.
PDF link
The link below is a critique of the 2010 act by Glenn Greenwald (of Edward Snowden allegations fame).
link
Rod Robertson

The USA can say what it likes….

International Law is however explicit – journalists, being unarmed are non-combatants and must be treated as such.

Targetting journalists is a war crime – and one that is perpetrated by far too many people throughout the world.

One wonders what the US has to hide.

They did, after all, do everything they could to hide the truth of Terry Lloyds' death, including destroying 15 mins of video footage.

And before anyone accuses me of my 'usual' anti-US bias, that's the conclusion of the investigation carried out by the Royal Military Police.

International Law is however explicit – journalists, being unarmed are non-combatants and must be treated as such.

Funny, even though modern Public Affairs troops aren't armed, they're still considered combatants by virtue of the organization they belong to.

Wake up stu …

Targetting journalists is a war crime – and one that is perpetrated by far too many people throughout the world.

No US troops or any other Western soldiers will knowingly, purposefully shoot journalists.

One wonders what the US has to hide.

Nothing … but I'm sure you and Rod will find something. LOL !!

Legion 4:

No US troops or any other Western soldiers will knowingly, purposefully shoot journalists.

But they will bomb them. Belgrade – RTS TV HQ on April 23, 1999 and the Business Centre USCE, which NATO destroyed on April 22, Al Jazeera – In both Afghanistan and Baghdad (twice) and a proposed mission to attack the Al Jazeera Main Office in Qatar.
link
Notice the extreme measures used by the UK government to keep the publication of this memo suppressed.
Rod Robertson.

Legion – if that's the case why did the US remove 15 minutes from the tape of the ITN crew and then destroy it?

You only destroy evidence if you have something to hide.

Again the official opinion of the British Army.

The USA has, as Rob says, a track record of deliberately killing journalists who give something other than the US-approved version of events.

To say the US doesn't deliberately target journalists is simply to deny facts – they plainly do and have.

Back to gaming
Buy loads of civilian figures including those with mobile phones and cameras
These figures may be observed, searched, snatched, collateral or targeted by the players.
So the players cannot see it Secretly mark the base underside with a "hearts & minds" VP value – some will be positive, the others negative.
During the game the +H&M are more likely to do suspicious acts, the -H&M less likely.
Only the +H&M will do hostile acts unless a -H&M is wounded/killed and is in LOS of a -H&M, then some will randomly throw rocks, shoot, take photos, ring the police/UN/family/u-tube, run, hide, panic, grieve, provide first aid etc
At the end of the gaming time, or when the last civilian is wounded/dead, snatched or fled off table. Tally up the H&R points to see if the players are winning the war.
Depending on you views of the military the players are using – you may or may not have a post game investigation/war crimes trial.

Disclaimer – the above is NOT political – I make no judgement about any nation, current, future or past – it is purely a mechanism for war gaming related to this topic in general and not any nation specifically.

H&M modifiers
Feel free to make up your own
Wounded x .5
Killed x 1
Snatched x2 if +, x .5 if -
Reporter in LOS of above x2 the reporters -/+

Note searching in such a game is point neutral, while in most cases it antagonises locals (depending on who does it and how) in this war game it isn't significant considering the alternatives.

The reporter modifier above only counts if they are not killed or snatched at the end of the game.

The USA has, as Rob says, a track record of deliberately killing journalists who give something other than the US-approved version of events.

To say the US doesn't deliberately target journalists is simply to deny facts – they plainly do and have.

And other nations do not have similar track records?

Say, for deliberately shooting or killing journalists for violating OPSEC?

You don't get to abuse the US for having done so without also abusing every other nation that does. And I'm pretty sure I could find examples of British forces deliberately targeting journalists, particularly freelancers.

International Law is however explicit – journalists, being unarmed are non-combatants and must be treated as such.

Funny, even though modern Public Affairs troops aren't armed, they're still considered combatants by virtue of the organization they belong to.

And given that unarmed modern Public Affairs troops are considered combatants because they are part of a national military, why then would journalists that are part of unlawful non-state combatant organizations not be considered unlawful combatants?

"Belgrade – RTS TV HQ on April 23, 1999 and the Business Centre USCE, which NATO destroyed on April 22"

RTS TV was supporting and guiding genocide, making it entirely appropriate for NATO to bomb them.

Rod's definition of "journalist" is again stretched to the breaking point.

Let's look at another example: the Hutu state and private media in Rwanda, which were issuing calls for genocide during the Rwandan massacres of 1994. The U.S. was criticised for not having intervened, and not having put a stop to the Hutu media (presumably by bombing them, although I supposed we could have asked nicely).

Had we bombed them, thereby saving some of the 5 million or so who died, Rod and his type would be hyperventilating about our treatment of journalists.

Shrug.

Lion in the Stars:
Classifying uniformed, non combatants as privileged (POW's) increases their protections and prospects for proper treatment and is therefore an advantage given to such servicemen and women.
Classifying unarmed, non combatant journalists who support non-state actors as unprivileged strips them of rights and protections they would be entitled to as civilians and lowers their prospects for proper treatment.
That divergent polarity of protections is why your point does not persuade me. It is a flawed comparison.

tuscaloosa:
Legion4 made a claim and I refuted it with facts. I did not argue for or against the airstrikes, only that they happened and journalists died. But since you have opened this can of political worms, I will comment.The Serbian bombings happened in 1999 when both Serbians and Albanian Kossovars were being ethically cleansed by the other side. What action did NATO take against the KLA? If you wish more background on the Serbian bombings of 1999, the following link offers a very different interpretation of NATO's motives and methods which you might find interesting.
link
With regards to the tragedy of Rawanda, the death toll was between 500,000 and 1,000,000 and not 5 million. Had NATO acted more quickly and bombed Rawandan Radio stations I would not be hyperventilating so long as the attacks were designed to kill as few as possible. If you target the transmitters and inadvertently kill civilians and journalists, that is like bombing a factory which is producing war materials – a legitimate use of force. The offices of the privately owned media in Serbia and the Al-Jazeera in Afghanistan and Iraq were not supporting genocide, they were documenting and broadcasting a different POV from the one which the NATO/Coallition leadership wanted to be accepted, so they were bombed.
The case for RTS is murkier. It certainly did promote and propagandize and did support ethnic cleansing and genocide in the early nineties but was never attacked. By 1999 it had cleaned up its act due to not wanting to be liable for criminal prosecution from changing war crimes rules. Rather it concentrated on challenging and debunking NATO, US and European justifications for intervention. This was no war crime, it was propaganda, and it was pretty effective propaganda. That is why they were bombed and why their ability to broadcast by satellite to the rest of the world was also shut down.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Lion – plenty of nations have a similar track record, but none of them are the sort of company the USA would like to keep.

And I'm pretty sure I could find examples of British forces deliberately targeting journalists, particularly freelancers.,/q>

Go on then. I'll give you 48 hours to find an exmaple of British troops killing journalists, or bombing a TV station, since, say, 2000.

why then would journalists that are part of unlawful non-state combatant organizations not be considered unlawful combatants?

Well, for a start because the term 'unlawful combatants' doesn't exist.

It's an imaginary term used by the US to justify war crimes.

But as Rob noted, the guidelines do not require for any investigation into the credentials of the individual – it covers all journalists, not jsut ones belonging to news organisations the USA finds awkward.

If the individual is spying, current international law covers that situation already.

Tuscaloosa – I think when you start calling for a genocide, you've somewhat crossed the line from journalism to active participation.

Al Jazeera doesn't do that, it just points out facts Washington finds embarrassing. And hence its staff occasionally get murdered.

But they will bomb them. Belgrade – RTS TV HQ on April 23, 1999 and the Business Centre USCE, which NATO destroyed on April 22, Al Jazeera – In both Afghanistan and Baghdad (twice) and a proposed mission to attack the Al Jazeera Main Office in Qatar.

Were they targeted or collateral damage ? Of course, it's SOP to target commo along with leadership. Did the US know who was there and what they were doing ?

Legion – if that's the case why did the US remove 15 minutes from the tape of the ITN crew and then destroy it?

You only destroy evidence if you have something to hide.

Again the official opinion of the British Army.

The USA has, as Rob says, a track record of deliberately killing journalists who give something other than the US-approved version of events.

To say the US doesn't deliberately target journalists is simply to deny facts – they plainly do and have.

stu again, was that on purpose of by accident ? Were you or Rod there ? I wasn't …

Rod's characterization is factually incorrect. He has twisted the link to make it say something it does not.

Have to agree with that … anyone can state "facts" that backs up their POV.

Legion4 made a claim and I refuted it with facts.

Case in point … it is the nature of debate. And in many, many times "Facts" are in the eye's of the beholder or those who make a statement that agrees with their POV … The old adage of "He said … She said … What actually happened" applies here. For all the comments and "facts" stated in this discussion. If the USA was the Great Satan, the Monster, the boogy man, etc. that some claim. Collateral Damage, etc. would not be a factor. Many places on the planet would look like the Darkside of the Moon. The losses to Daesh, AQ, the Taliban, etc. would be horrendus. And along with that the lose of non-combatants would be equally high. Of course it's hard to deny the barbarity of some of those groups I mentioned. Many in their vicinity would be dead regardless. Again, war is a very nasty business, even if you play by the rules. Which all who we are in conflict currently follow No rules. Save for a corrupt, self-serving version of a their religious beliefs, etc. … Remember in the "Fog of War" many bad things can and do happen. Many of which are not planned but just happen … And everybody points fingers and have dirty hands … some much dirtier than others. And remember about glass houses and stone throwing.

Legion 4:
All were targeted and all were at locations made known to the NATO/Coalition planners. In one case the US had an Al Jazeera office on the do-not-hit map, removed it from protection and hit it, then tried to claim it was an unintentional attack but the map, which had been circulated to Coalition partners, proved them wrong. This despite Al Jazeera regularly updating and reminding the planners of their location and status.
NATO deliberately tried to lure a Serbian information minister to his death during the attack on the RTS TV HQ in April of 1999. The Independent journalist Robert Fisk described what happened:

"Two days before NATO bombed the Serb Television headquarters in Belgrade, CNN received a tip from its Atlanta headquarters that the building was to be destroyed. They were told to remove their facilities from the premises at once, which they did.

A day later, Serbian Information Minister Aleksander Vucic received a faxed invitation from the Larry King Live show in the U.S. to appear on CNN. They wanted him on the air at 2:30 in the morning of 23 April and asked him to arrive at Serb Television half an hour early for make-up.

Vucic was late — which was just as well for him since NATO missiles slammed into the building at six minutes past two. The first one exploded in the make-up room where a young Serb assistant was burned to death. CNN calls this all a coincidence, saying that the Larry King show, put out by the entertainment division, did not know of the news department's instructions to it men to leave the Belgrade building."

Come to your own conclusions.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Legion 4:

Have to agree with that … anyone can state "facts" that backs up their POV.

I would hope that reasonable people would consider facts offered, find other facts which support different conclusions, present them and engage in a reasoned debate. To dismiss facts offered and to confuse factual conclusions as a POV is not reasonable or logical. To deny demonstrable facts in the absence of any contradictory evidence offered is hard for me to understand. L4 my citations were not meant to promote a POV, they were added to this thread as a response to disprove a claim which you made and which I thought was incorrect. These events happened. They are documented facts. They are historical events which anyone can verify if they have the time and inclination to do so. If you find these facts unpersuasive, so be it. I cannot control what others think. I can only present evidence which I find persuasive and let others make up their own minds.
I do find it a little odd that some posters on this thread (not you) have forsaken reasoned debate and resorted to ad hominem attacks about my intentions or credibility. Wouldn't it be better to try constructing counter arguments based on contradictory evidence and facts to disprove my assertions and arguments? But that is the nature of the human condition I suppose so there is nothing to be done.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Rod much of what you say is reasonable and sounds like it is factual, etc. … I don't doubt your veracity, etc. … And in the heat of war, NATO/USA, etc. may have made some less than "clean" decisions. That is the nature of war … Your facts sound to be truthful. I don't doubt things like that happen. And hence, if this "underhanded" type of thing happened during a conflict, it probably isn't rare. My point is No US/Western troops would do what Daesh did and does to captured journalists. With the speed of the modern internet, it is a new paradigm, that has to be considered. I think you may be over reacting to the FM's intent.

Legion 4:
"FM" – field manual?
Yes, bad things happen in war and sometimes 'good' people are put into positions where they have to make dreadful, life and death decisions at urgent speed. That is why these Laws of War rules exist, to restrain the hands of soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen from crossing lines and bringing shame and dishonour on the Armed Forces of states which attempt to hold themselves to a higher standard than unrestrained states and non state actors. If the West wishes to descend to the barbarism of IS or the tyranny of Russia then changes such as these should be welcomed. If however, the West values the principles of liberalism, the rule of law, and freedom from tyranny then great suspicion and caution should be taken before delegating such legal powers to the military and stripping powers from others, especially if those others could one day be the fellow citizens whose rights they are supposed to protect.
This is going to sound like a sermon, and for that I apologize. Almost everyone here knows this but perhaps they need some reminding. The founding fathers of the United States made sure that soldiers/sailors, officers, congressmen, and presidents take an oath to defend the Constitution of the USA from all enemies, foreign and domestic. Their duty is not to protect the land, the people, the business interests or even the institutions of the state. This sacred duty is to protect the principles of liberal-democracy, the rule of law and the legal rights and responsibilities which generations of Americans fought and sacrificed to protect. So when the institution of last resort for the US Constitution begins eroding the rights and freedoms of the American people by willingly accepting draconian laws which could be used against American citizens, it's time for everybody, soldier and civilian to take a close, hard look at what is being done and if the advantage of such changes out-weighs the cost to liberty. I suspect that the cost will be far greater than the advantages in the middle and long term.
Cheers.
Rod Robertson.

Be still my beating heart.