US military may have targeted Journalists in Iraq

CptStern

suckmonkey
Joined
May 5, 2004
Messages
10,315
Reaction score
62
a long read but worth it imho ..here's some of the highlights



"....during the World Economic Forum in Switzerland that a dozen journalists covering the war "not only [had] been killed by U.S. troops in Iraq but they had in fact been targeted," according to press accounts. Mr. Jordan quickly tried to back off his statement, but the reverberations led to his resignation.

Before the war, the Pentagon issued warnings that sounded like threats, saying it would not guarantee the safety of journalists who were not officially "embedded" into assigned U.S. military units. Pentagon publicist Victoria Clarke, around the time the war began, said that journalists who went out on their own were "putting themselves at risk."

On March 8, 2003, 12 days before the invasion, Kate Aidie, then a war correspondent for the BBC, said on RTE radio in Ireland that she was told by Pentagon officials "that any [satellite] uplinks by journalists would be fired on" by coalition aircraft. What they were doing was creating an environment of intimidation and threat. This was a ploy to ensure that the reporters who did go to Iraq without Pentagon cooperation would be blamed when anything happened."


"Sadly, out of patriotic correctness, the major U.S.-based news networks went along. Jingoism often displaced journalism. Flag-waving replaced objectivity. It takes courage just to address the issue. Consider CNN's Christiane Amanpour's gutsy but controversial condemnation of "disinformation at the highest levels." Or Ashleigh Banfield's public criticism of "sanitized" coverage that probably cost her her job at MSNBC. They made clear there was an official determination to control the news at all costs."


In this atmosphere, it was inevitable that there were incidents involving journalists. Ask ITN in London what happened to the late Terry Lloyd and his team, who were driving in a clearly marked TV vehicle shot up by U.S. soldiers, who at first denied it. ITN officials said they "got nowhere" with military officials when they tried to investigate the facts surrounding the incident. How bad was it? Ask BBC veteran John Simpson, who, accompanied by a military liaison, was nearly bombed into the next world by a U.S. jet in the North of Iraq, even when the military knew they were there. Two of his colleagues were killed.


"U.S. forces detained and badly mistreated two journalists, one Portuguese and one Israeli, who they believed were spies." According to the NUJ, they were beaten. The incident was not widely reported. (Yes, Iraqi forces also harassed and mistreated journalists. They killed two foreign embeds with a missile attack.) After two journalists died April 8, 2003, at Baghdad's Palestine Hotel when a tank shell was lobbed into a building known by the Pentagon as a site where numerous Western media were based, Reuters called for an independent investigation. The International Federation of Journalists angrily demanded a real probe. Phillip Knightley, a respected historian on war and media and author of "The First Casualty: The War Correspondent as Hero and Myth-Maker From the Crimea to Kosovo," correctly said, "There will be no investigation." He added, "I believe that the occasional shots fired at media sites are not accidental and that war correspondents will now be targeted."



http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/media/2005/0228target.htm



it's a tactic that's been used in the past so I'm hardly surprised but disturbing nonetheless



here's another article detailing some of the incidents and in the case of Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, tries to justify attacking the media:


"Early in 2002, the BBC sent Gowing to Washington on a mission of pressing, even personal, concern. On November 13, 2001 - the day before Northern Alliance forces captured Kabul - the U.S. military had bombed the BBC's broadcasting facilities there. More intriguing to the journalist in Gowing, the U.S. also destroyed the Kabul bureau of the Arab satellite channel al-Jazeera, which the Bush administration had publicly branded as an al-Qaida propaganda outlet for broadcasting video tapes from Osama bin Laden."
 
I wouldn't put it past them for a secound.
 
Journalists shouldnt be in war zones if they arent embedded, its not the US governments responsibility, if they put them selves in harms way and they die, to bad. Secondly the government obviously warned them so its still thier own fault
 
so it's their fault they were deliberately bombed even though the US knew where they were?

embedding isnt for the safety of the news crew ..it's to ensure that all media coming out of iraq is carefully scrutinized by the military prior to broadcasting



man some of you will justify anthing so long as it's the US military doing it ..anybody else is fair game
 
I seriously doubt there were any 'deliberate, evil natured' attacks on journalists by american forces. Unless the individual(s) doing so are particularily malicious.

Remember, those are people in the military, most of them very likely good natured kids in a situation they can't control, but try to cope with and react to.
 
did you read the article? even members of cnn, reuters and the bbc thought it was deliberate
 
CptStern said:
so it's their fault they were deliberately bombed even though the US knew where they were?

embedding isnt for the safety of the news crew ..it's to ensure that all media coming out of iraq is carefully scrutinized by the military prior to broadcasting

man some of you will justify anthing so long as it's the US military doing it ..anybody else is fair game

And stern all you are doing here is trying to create the down fall of america. I will admit not everything in america is peachy, there are mistakes, but as far as specifically targeting media personal i find that hard to believe, esspecially given the expertise that american troops have.

Stern are you from america?

To me journalists are worse then the insurgents there, they film insurgents carrying out attacks, and even see what thier daily life is. They are being used by the insurgents to propogate thier idiologies.

Lastly I never said any one else is fair game, quit assuming.
 
CptStern said:
did you read the article? even members of cnn, reuters and the bbc thought it was deliberate

Key word here stern is THOUGHT, its an opinion. give me some straight facts please.


www.globalpolicy.org said:
Before the war, the Pentagon issued warnings that sounded like threats, saying it would not guarantee the safety of journalists who were not officially "embedded" into assigned U.S. military units. Pentagon publicist Victoria Clarke, around the time the war began, said that journalists who went out on their own were "putting themselves at risk."

Doesnt sound like a threat to me, they are telling the journalists that they are putting them selves at risk.

www.globalpolicy.org said:
Kate Aidie, then a war correspondent for the BBC, said on RTE radio in Ireland that she was told by Pentagon officials "that any [satellite] uplinks by journalists would be fired on" by coalition aircraft. What they were doing was creating an environment of intimidation and threat. This was a ploy to ensure that the reporters who did go to Iraq without Pentagon cooperation would be blamed when anything happened.

Once again its a war, if america imposes rules on journalists its for a reason. What if insurgents were using satilite uplinks to communicate, its a nessisary precaution. If journalists got fired upon its thier fault for not being responisible and following guide lines.

www.globalpolicy.org said:
In this atmosphere, it was inevitable that there were incidents involving journalists. Ask ITN in London what happened to the late Terry Lloyd and his team, who were driving in a clearly marked TV vehicle shot up by U.S. soldiers, who at first denied it. ITN officials said they "got nowhere" with military officials when they tried to investigate the facts surrounding the incident. How bad was it? Ask BBC veteran John Simpson, who, accompanied by a military liaison, was nearly bombed into the next world by a U.S. jet in the North of Iraq, even when the military knew they were there. Two of his colleagues were killed.


Find the whold story on this little bit i know theres more to it, what was going on, why were the reporters thier! this is such a bias site stern.
 
No surprise. Though I'd normally condemn this, journalists who are not embedded in the army or follow the strict rules go into these zones at their own risks.
I strongly doubt they were deliberate attacks on journalists, though the Army would have little incentive to double-check.
 
It seems a little unlikely but not at all unbelievable, sadly. Certainly it sounds like they're guilty of preventing investigation into supposedly accidental deaths. If they were accidental, why block investigations?

dantewilliams said:
To me journalists are worse then the insurgents there

Um, right. Yeah. Sure.
 
dantewilliams said:
Key word here stern is THOUGHT, its an opinion. give me some straight facts please.




Doesnt sound like a threat to me, they are telling the journalists that they are putting them selves at risk.

Once again its a war, if america imposes rules on journalists its for a reason. What if insurgents were using satilite uplinks to communicate, its a nessisary precaution. If journalists got fired upon its thier fault for not being responisible and following guide lines.

yes but they admited it was a load of bs:

Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, who served at the time as deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. On the day the bombs dropped, he told an al-Jazeera journalist that it was all a "mistake" because "a weapon went awry." Later, he told Gowing a different, far scarier story, which the British journalist described at length in The Guardian on April 8, 2002.

The compound occupied by al-Jazeera "had been, and was at the time, a facility used by al-Qaida," said Quigley. The admiral made no distinction between al-Qaida and the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan. The "al-Qaida activity" had been "multiple purpose," Quigley added. That gave the compound "military significance," which made it a "legitimate target." What made a potential target militarily significant? Quigley refused to say. Nor would he or anyone else at the Pentagon explain how their secret definition of "military significance" might affect the media's increasing use of low-cost, highly portable uplink technology.

"Nobody in any of the coalition intelligence systems was paying any attention to where those things [broadcast uplinks] were, to the best of my knowledge," said Quigley. "I do not know why they would." Journalists had been uplinking to al-Jazeera's satellite from the same location in Kabul for 20 months. They had marked the compound clearly and told the Pentagon they were there. And, on at least one occasion, U.S. intelligence admitted knowing the content of an Osama bin Laden tape that the journalists in Kabul had beamed back to their headquarters in Qatar. But, Quigley insisted, the military - or at least those who did the targeting - never knew the compound was al-Jazeera's.

"It was not relevant for us to know that it was a broadcast facility," said Quigley. The military was only concerned about identifying targets "directly relevant to prosecuting the war."

"So," asked Gowing, "if they [news broadcasters] are uplinking [by satellite], essentially that would not be relevant in your calculations. If they happen to be there: tough! They get hit?"

"Yeah - that is pretty much it," the admiral replied. "If there is a legitimate target next door to a broadcast facility, that would not slow us down one bit from taking out the legitimate target next door."


"Not one bit," Quigley emphasized again.





dantewilliams said:
Find the whold story on this little bit i know theres more to it, what was going on, why were the reporters thier! this is such a bias site stern.

you mean Global Policy Forum a consultative group who monitors UN policy making and often works directly with the UN security council?

ya I can see how it's biased ..it's the UN :upstare:
 
Interesting. I guess in war, there's always mistakes. I think it's safe to say that if you're not embedded with a military unit, then you're putting yourself at risk.

Now, I believe that news coming out of that region has been filtered and twisted but I'm not so sure about the deliberate attacks on journalists. I have to read more on the subject to try and come up with an educated opinion.
 
Sulkdodds said:
It seems a little unlikely but not at all unbelievable, sadly. Certainly it sounds like they're guilty of preventing investigation into supposedly accidental deaths. If they were accidental, why block investigations?

Exactly my thoughts on the matter
 
Our government has done a lot worse stuff lately that has killed a whole lot more people. Theres no reason to think this is somehow beyond them.
 
CptStern said:
yes but they admited it was a load of bs:

Rear Admiral Craig Quigley, who served at the time as deputy assistant secretary of defense for public affairs. On the day the bombs dropped, he told an al-Jazeera journalist that it was all a "mistake" because "a weapon went awry." Later, he told Gowing a different, far scarier story, which the British journalist described at length in The Guardian on April 8, 2002.

The compound occupied by al-Jazeera "had been, and was at the time, a facility used by al-Qaida," said Quigley. The admiral made no distinction between al-Qaida and the Taliban, who ruled Afghanistan. The "al-Qaida activity" had been "multiple purpose," Quigley added. That gave the compound "military significance," which made it a "legitimate target." What made a potential target militarily significant? Quigley refused to say. Nor would he or anyone else at the Pentagon explain how their secret definition of "military significance" might affect the media's increasing use of low-cost, highly portable uplink technology.

"Nobody in any of the coalition intelligence systems was paying any attention to where those things [broadcast uplinks] were, to the best of my knowledge," said Quigley. "I do not know why they would." Journalists had been uplinking to al-Jazeera's satellite from the same location in Kabul for 20 months. They had marked the compound clearly and told the Pentagon they were there. And, on at least one occasion, U.S. intelligence admitted knowing the content of an Osama bin Laden tape that the journalists in Kabul had beamed back to their headquarters in Qatar. But, Quigley insisted, the military - or at least those who did the targeting - never knew the compound was al-Jazeera's.

"It was not relevant for us to know that it was a broadcast facility," said Quigley. The military was only concerned about identifying targets "directly relevant to prosecuting the war."

"So," asked Gowing, "if they [news broadcasters] are uplinking [by satellite], essentially that would not be relevant in your calculations. If they happen to be there: tough! They get hit?"

"Yeah - that is pretty much it," the admiral replied. "If there is a legitimate target next door to a broadcast facility, that would not slow us down one bit from taking out the legitimate target next door."


"Not one bit," Quigley emphasized again.







you mean Global Policy Forum a consultative group who monitors UN policy making and often works directly with the UN security council?

ya I can see how it's biased ..it's the UN :upstare:


Stern i dont see whats wrong if journalists get killed when the know the risks, its like sticking knives down your throat, i dont see any orders given to target reporters. The military just isnt giving consideration to the reporters in the area HENCE all the warnings given to the reporters, the US isnt going to be responsible for fool hardy reporters.
 
it'd be nice if you actually read what I posted every now and then ..the rear admiral is admitting that al-jazeera was targeted because they were a strategic target not because they got in the way
 
CptStern said:
it'd be nice if you actually read what I posted every now and then ..the rear admiral is admitting that al-jazeera was targeted because they were a strategic target not because they got in the way

aljazeera is just as bad as the insurgents, they basically endorse the insurgency. And see yes they were a strategic target, and i wonder why!

CptStern said:
The compound occupied by al-Jazeera "had been, and was at the time, a facility used by al-Qaida," said Quigley

So stfu learn to read stern. and maybe the aljazeeran reporters should be setting up stations in alqaidas compounds BUM BUM BUM
 
CptStern said:


The compound occupied by al-Jazeera "had been, and was at the time, a facility used by al-Qaida," said Quigley
The compound occupied by al-Jazeera "had been, and was at the time, a facility used by al-Qaida," said Quigley
The compound occupied by al-Jazeera "had been, and was at the time, a facility used by al-Qaida," said Quigley
The compound occupied by al-Jazeera "had been, and was at the time, a facility used by al-Qaida," said Quigley

STERN READ MY FRIEND YOU POSTED THIS HEED ITS WORDS
 
Hundreds of eyewitnesses saying the military targeted the media, oh well, to a Bush bot it means nothing.

Many journalists being killed by what seemed to be deliberate attacks, oh well, to a Bush bot it means nothing.

A memo comes up stating Bush actually wanted to bomb Al-Jezeera, og well, to a Bush bot that means nothing.

Anyone that dares question any of these actions is just a anti-american terrorist sympathizer. Raziar, dantewilliams, ghost, and others, how ****ing gullible can you be? How many innocent people does this government you voted for have to kill to make something click in your head that says " wait a second, I should question these actions". Honestly, when I read some of your posts I have a hard time understanding how you guys got this far in life.
 
dante, did you really just claim Al Jazeera was supporting terrorism? I'm not normally this rude and childish but this is the only way I feel I can respond; if you can't provide any actual report they did that shows them doing this do us all a favor and stfu.
 
dantewilliams said:
To me journalists are worse then the insurgents there, they film insurgents carrying out attacks, and even see what thier daily life is. They are being used by the insurgents to propogate thier idiologies.
If they signed you up, gave you a uniform, a gun and shipped you out to Iraq, then you would be quite happy to shoot any journalists who "got in the way". As you say yourself, theyre worse than the insurgents and you`d shoot them, wouldnt you?


Also, American bombing of the media is not without precedent, the US bombed a tv station in Belgrade in `99 on purpose.

Robert Fisk of the Independant wrote at the time:
Against the wishes of other Nato nations, so the word went, General Wesley Clark had decided to bomb Serb television. CNN withdrew from the building in Takovska Street. And that night, we were all invited to have coffee and orange juice in the studios. The building was likely to be a target of the "Nato aggressor", according to Goran Matic, a Yugoslav federal minister, as he walked us through the ground floor of the doomed building. Yet, oddly, we did not take him seriously. Even when the air-raid siren sounded, I stayed for another coffee.

Surely Nato wouldn't waste its bombs on this tiresome station with its third-rate propaganda and old movies, let alone kill its staff. Yesterday morning, the moment I heard the cruise missile scream over my hotel roof, I knew I was wrong. There was a thunderous explosion and a mile-high cloud of dust as four storeys collapsed to the ground, sandwiching offices, machines, transmitters and people into a pile of rubble only 15 feet high.................
....................The crowds still stood in the park as darkness fell, watching the men with drills punching their way through the concrete for more survivors. By that time, explanations were flowing from Nato's birthday celebrations in Washington. Serbia's "propaganda machine" had been prolonging the war.

I wonder. I seem to recall Croatian television spreading hatred a-plenty when it was ethnically cleansing 170,000 Serbs from Croatia in 1995. But we didn't bomb Zagreb. And when President Franjo Tudjman's lads were massacring Serbs and Muslims alike in Bosnia, we didn't bomb his residence.

Was Serbian television's real sin its broadcast of film of the Nato massacre of Kosovo Albanian refugees last week, killings that Nato was forced to admit had been a mistake? Yes, Serbian television could be hateful, biased, bad. It was owned by the government. But once you kill people because you don't like what they say, you have changed the rules of war. And that's what Nato did in Belgrade in the early hours of yesterday morning.
http://www.revisionisthistory.org/nato1.html (for the full article)

They have done it before and there is no reason why we shouldnt think them capable of doing it again.

Also: Al-Jazeera have set up a "dont bomb us" bolg, if anyone`s interested http://dontbomb.blogspot.com/
 
dantewilliams said:
just another useless debate, no ones changing opinions here.
That is what makes debates and arguments so interesting for me. The only people who can convince anyone of anything are the ones who are in the middle, who share thoughts from both sides.
 
dantewilliams said:
just another useless debate, no ones changing opinions here.


you have a defeatist attitude and avoid the tough questions
 
CptStern said:
you have a defeatist attitude and avoid the tough questions

ok heres the facts:

media has been targeted 99'

reporters in iraq, killed, warned ahead of time

Al jeezera bombed using Alquaida compound.

no argument here these are facts.

my personal stance is that reporters should stay out the way and let the military do thier job, if they happen to die in a battle, its a damn shame, But the military has a job to do, and if keeping a few soldiers alive means destroying a media outlet where terrorists might be then so be it.
 
Well, even if the US aren't deliberately targetting journalists then they certainly need to be more careful with their ordnance, don't they?
 
dantewilliams said:
ok heres the facts:

media has been targeted 99'

reporters in iraq, killed, warned ahead of time

Al jeezera bombed using Alquaida compound.

no argument here these are facts.

my personal stance is that reporters should stay out the way and let the military do thier job, if they happen to die in a battle, its a damn shame, But the military has a job to do, and if keeping a few soldiers alive means destroying a media outlet where terrorists might be then so be it.


CptStern said:
you have a defeatist attitude and avoid the tough questions


al jazeera was attacked a number of times by the US in 2 seperate incidents killing journalists not al qaeda. The US has gone out of it's way to do whatever they can to silence them. They are not a front for al qaeda. If that were true the US would never have told al jazeera that they were bombed by mistake.

It wasnt the first and it wont be the last. In fact there's a leaked memo, in which PM Blair pleaded with bush not to bomb an al jazeera outlet in Qatar (an ally of the US) for fear of turning them against the coalition. the existance of it proved by the fact that the people responsible for the leak have been charged and access to the memo itself cut off by the Official Secrets Act.

The newspaper that printed an atricle detailing some of the contents of the memo were handed a gag order and editors were threatened with prosecution over further publishing of leaks:

“publication of a document that has been unlawfully disclosed by a Crown servant could be in breach of Section 5 of the Official Secrets Act.”


here's a letter from the managing director of Al jazeera to PM Blair asking the UK to release the memo to the public




dantewilliams said:
reporters in iraq, killed, warned ahead of time

they lied about an incident where they fired into a hotel in baghdad killing 2 journalists (one was from Reuters). The US claimed they had been under extremely heavy fire from the hotel ..they later admitted they hadnt been under fire. The hotel was well known as it had been a base of operations for several news media organisations including cnn and the bbc for many years. Incidentily the tank attack came on the same day as the al jazeera attack which killed a cameraman and also another attack on Abu Dhabi TV......3 attacks in one day on 3 different news media outlets in Baghdad.. that's one hell of a coincidence


"Pentagon spokespersons said right from the start that an M1 Abrams tank opened fire on the hotel in legitimate self-defence in response to "enemy fire" coming from the hotel or the area around it. This line was maintained and emphasised at the highest official level in the days that followed

Sgt. Shawn Gibson, the 3rd Infantry Division (3ID) tank gunner who fired the fatal shot, and his immediate superior, Capt. Philip Wolford, who authorised it, denied they had fired because of shooting from the hotel."

here's everything in a nice neat little package: from eyewitness testimony to the testimony of the soldiers who fired on the hotel







<statement removed as to not lose focus on the above points>
 
I really don't like this

CptStern said:
...but again you'll turn a blind eye to facts and avoid this all together.

It gives an otherwise interesting post an insulting tone, especially if someone is trying to read things objectively.
If you're looking to convert people to your point of view, this is not the way to go about it.

Both extremes of the scale are equally guilty of similar actions, and frankly I'm getting sick of it.
Politics threads degenerate into the same mud-slinging every ****ing time.



But back on topic - if this is true, then this is very worrying. To a certain extent some events can be put down to error or accident, but not all of them.
Article bookmarked.
 
ComradeBadger said:
I really don't like this



It gives an otherwise interesting post an insulting tone, especially if someone is trying to read things objectively.
If you're looking to convert people to your point of view, this is not the way to go about it.

Both extremes of the scale are equally guilty of similar actions, and frankly I'm getting sick of it.
Politics threads degenerate into the same mud-slinging every ****ing time.

I was specifically addressing dantewilliams as he had avoided my earlier statements ..it's not out of habit that I'm slinging mud but out of sheer frustration that my points are being ignored ...that said I dont think you're helping by derailing my points by only focusing on that last line as you're inviting others to do the same


so in the best interests of what I posted I am rescinding that statement
 
I'm aware of the reasons behind it - I didn't mean to single you out as much as I did.

If your points are being ignored by him, there is little point in directing him towards them again and again, just let him wallow in his ignorance.

Anyway, back on topic, sorry everyone for that little sidetrack :D
 
ComradeBadger said:
I'm aware of the reasons behind it - I didn't mean to single you out as much as I did.

If your points are being ignored by him, there is little point in directing him towards them again and again, just let him wallow in his ignorance.

Anyway, back on topic, sorry everyone for that little sidetrack :D

I cant ..I cant let statements remain unchallened ...besides you bookmarked the article ..others may have done the same or at least read through some of what was posted ..making the effort worthwhile
 
dantewilliams said:
just another useless debate, no ones changing opinions here.
So that means you have no examples of al queda support from Al Jazeera? I have to ask, why did you claim it?
 
Back
Top