We Report, You Deceased
	found on YearZero Magazine written by luna bizarre, edited by George (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Thu 13 Mar 8:07am
		Respected journalist Kate Adie has alleged in an interview on Irish radio that U.S. forces will target the source of any communications out of Baghdad during a war on Iraq -- including journalists. luna bizarre provides the transcript: Adie: I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks, that is the television signals out of... Baghdad, for example, were detected by any planes...electronic media... mediums of the military above Baghdad...they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists...

	Host: Kate...sorry Kate...just to underline that. Sorry to interrupt you. Just to explain for our listeners. Uplinks is where you have your own satellite telephone method of distributing information. Adie: The telephones and the television signals. Host: And they would be fired on? Adie: Yes. They would be 'targeted down,' said the officer. Host: Extraordinary ! Adie: Shameless. He said.. 'Well... they know this ...they've been warned.' "Adie told Irish radio, 'The Americans... take the attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of information.' She states that the American government is leaving journalists with anti-war sentiment out in the cold, and intends to take over American technical equipment to control access to the airwaves." We've been discussing the role of a free press in a war zone for a while now, with the subject even creeping into other discussions. Is this a warning to journalists unwilling to toe the party line, or a prudent measure by the military to cut off an enemy's command and control measures?

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 157 commentsbest: 8 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  How unreasonable...   by rombuu       at Thu 13 Mar 8:34am score of 3 astute     ...what the military during a war should do, of course, is detect the signal, then spend precious time decoding it to determine if it is a military signal or a civilian signal. Oh, and make sure that it isn't a military signal desguised as a civilian signal. Come on, how silly. There are plenty of was to get information out of Iraq without using satellites, so I fail to see how this is an issue. It was nice of the military to give them a warning though... http://drlunch.com The site that helps you decide where to go to lunch!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  How unreasonable...   by Goldmund       at Thu 13 Mar 8:44am score of 2 compelling   in reply to comment 1     For the military to wonder whether they are bombing a civilian target or a military one. I mean, it's not like anyone's going to find out about their bombardment of a few journalists, especially if they scare the rest of them out with this warning. And you wonder why us screaming liberals don't trust the military? Why is it unreasonable, when bombarding another nation, to NOT determine if the signal is in, say, Arabic, vs. English? All this is a scare tactic, a threat by the military, to suppress the free flow of information out of Iraq once the bombs start. And one more question, why does the military want to stop the free flow out information out of a nation they are bombarding? Oh, right, they are premptively trying to nip any My Lai-Iraq stories in the bud. If you don't see anything wrong with that, I pity you for your short-sightedness and power-worship.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   7.  Re: How unreasonable...   by srose       at Thu 13 Mar 9:04am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 3     If you don't see anything wrong with that, I pity you for your short-sightedness and power-worship. Yeah - it is much better to have knee-jerk reactions. What's wrong with every other method of getting information out? Even if it's a little slow - pony express would work just as well. If the military suggests that sat. communication is not a good idea, probably because they might want to cut down on the number of signals they have to investigate (easier to determine if 10 signals are military/civilian vs. 1000). Especially if speed is essential. News from the source of things "as they happen" rarely helps/is correct anyway (fail to have access to all the facts). They didn't say that she COULDN'T report - just not to use satelite communications. It almost seems she's angry that she can't get more "war correspondent street cred" by showing up live. Does she rush into burning buildings to report how a fire is going too? If anyone wants me, I'll be in the angrydome!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   26.  Re: How unreasonable...   by moominpapa       at Thu 13 Mar 10:18am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 7     What's wrong with every other method of getting information out? Even if it's a little slow - pony express would work just as well. If the information moves slowly enough, by the time it's reported, it's old news. If it's not relevant, it's effectively useless. For example - The "coalition" forces bomb a factory they say is making chemical weapons. Independent Reporter from Muckraker Magazine was in that factory two days ago interviewing people and has evidence that it was only for manufacturing pharmaceuticals. She sends out her report via pony express, and by the time it gets out to the public, nobody remembers the factory, and the report informs no one, influences no one, and changes nothing. In the meantime, twenty more suspected chemical weapons factories (five of which turned out to be elementary schools) have been destroyed. This is just an example, you understand... If US soliders have to research 1000 signals from satellite uplinks, then they have to research 1000 signals. If one is so concerned about soliders being hampered and potentially injured, then perhaps one should think twice about sending them into harm's way, rather than threatening independent journalists. If the US cause were truly right, one would think that the military would welcome independent reporting. All those doubtful "facts" and figures tossed about by Colin Powell would finally be verified. "We're sorry we doubted you, Mr. Bush! You are the savior of the world, as opposed to the semi-literate puppet of the rich old white men club we thought you were." ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   29.  Re: How reasonable...   by zyxwvutsr       at Thu 13 Mar 10:25am score of 1.5 succinct   in reply to comment 26     If one is so concerned about soliders being hampered and potentially injured, then perhaps one should think twice about sending them into harm's way, rather than threatening independent journalists If one is so concerned about journalists being hampered and potentially injured, then perhaps one should think twice about sending them into harm's way, rather than threatening American soldiers' lives by making them "research" radio signals in enemy areas.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: How unreasonable...   by stankow       at Thu 13 Mar 10:53am score of 1.5 astute   in reply to comment 26     If the information moves slowly enough, by the time it's reported, it's old news. If it's not relevant, it's effectively useless. Because when the world learned of the events at My Lai 4 some eight months later, the response was a collective yawn at the old news. Yes, yes, I know -- it's a faster-moving world now. But let's not dismiss the world's capacity for delayed outrage entirely.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   33.  Re: How unreasonable...   by srose       at Thu 13 Mar 10:57am score of 1.5 clever   in reply to comment 26     This is just an example, you understand... I understand, and a poor one at that. Can I play too? Pretend military allows sat uplinks. Turns out a lot of them are being used. One happens to be sending orders to mobile Scud launchers sending missles to Israel. Military spends too much time trying to determine friend or foe status of signals, allowing said truck to operate for weeks in the desert ("shoot and scoot") Sooner or later, Scud containing gas lands in Israel. Just a silly example, you understand... If anyone wants me, I'll be in the angrydome!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: How unreasonable...   by MiceHead       at Thu 13 Mar 11:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 26     If the information moves slowly enough, by the time it's reported, it's old news. If it's not relevant, it's effectively useless. Which of us will be taking action based upon live coverage of a war waged on Iraq? If the US cause were truly right, one would think that the military would welcome independent reporting. It sounds as through you expect our forces to use different tactics based on the legitimacy of the cause. Captain: What tactics should we use, Sir? Commander: Well, since our cause is not truly right, we'll be using the "evil" tactics. You there! Go steal some babies or something. Now get those journalists out of here before they see us. =MiceHead - The Stock Market for the Next 100 Years   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   40.  Oh, oh - let me play...   by Goldmund       at Thu 13 Mar 11:19am score of 1   in reply to comment 33     Pretend there's a site that the US military is claiming is a WMD manufacturing site. Say, in a week or two, Colin Powell again goes on TV and shows us pictures and the UN decides to OK the US attack. Say, upon hearing about this, a journalist gets transportation out to the site and, realizing it is a suspect, but innocuous factory having nothing to do with chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons. So, said reporter, too afraid of the imminent attack to try his sat-phone, sends out his message on the 'pony express'. The bombardment comes and destroys the factory and the attack commences and it's not until after the ashes haves settled do we realize that this pretext for war was false. But by then, the damage is done, the war is over. How about that?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   41.  Re: How reasonable...   by moominpapa       at Thu 13 Mar 11:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 29     This is a complex point, and I'm going to try and formulate it as best I can. The US government is putting soliders in harm's way by invading Iraq. A journalist enters Iraq to cover the war. If the US had not invaded Iraq, the journalist would not have had any reason to go there in the first place. Therefore, the US bears some responsibility for journalists being in Iraq. Said journalist is killed because the soliders have been ordered to destroy all satellite uplinks, rather than check them out to see which are military targets, and which are civilians. By ordering this, the Pentagon is saying that soliders are worth more than journalists. Though this may be true to the Pentagon, it is not true by any moral standard. They are also effectively equating journalists with the enemy combatants. This implies that there is some sort of adversarial relationship between those whose job it is to report the truth, and the objectives of this military campaign. This seems to indicate that the objectives of the campaign are not as they appear, and that, if the truth were brought out, there would be opposition to the actual (as opposed to the given) objectives of said campaign. Lastly, the US has the most power in this situation. Those with the most power also must bear the most responsibility. To simply say, "It's war, and if a journalist goes in there, they have to expect to be shot at," is wrong. If the US kills a journalist because they couldn't be bothered to check out a satellite signal, then they have murdered someone who is innocent of wrong doing. If they can't bear the responsibility of making sure they're killing the people they say they want to kill, they shouldn't be there in the first place. ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   42.  Re: How unreasonable...   by moominpapa       at Thu 13 Mar 11:27am score of 1   in reply to comment 32     Because when the world learned of the events at My Lai 4 some eight months later, the response was a collective yawn at the old news. That's true. But by the time the news gets out by conventional means, the war might be over. Though, now that I think about it, if things are moving that fast, hearing about atrocities on the news as they happen wouldn't make it so that I could mount that letter writing campaign to stop it. So I guess it really doesn't matter... ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   43.  Re: How reasonable...   by Quantumpanda       at Thu 13 Mar 11:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 41     They are also effectively equating journalists with the enemy combatants. This implies that there is some sort of adversarial relationship between those whose job it is to report the truth, and the objectives of this military campaign. This seems to indicate that the objectives of the campaign are not as they appear, and that, if the truth were brought out, there would be opposition to the actual (as opposed to the given) objectives of said campaign. Actually, this pretty much applies to any military action, in any time or place. Military tactics are generally based on your opponent not knowing what you're doing until they can't prevent it. The press being in the middle of the combat zone hampers that. It's hard to surprise the enemy when your troop status is on CNN every hour. There always has been, and probably always will be, an adversarial relationship between government entities and information disseminators. Leaders tend to thrive on secret knowledge, and in some cases secrecy is justified. Journalists, on the other hand, tend to fall more dogmatically on the side of "all information must be made public, regardless of the consequences." In reality, the best course lies somewhere in between. People are stupid. Since we usually can't kill them, we have to settle for the next best thing: we laugh at them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   45.  Re: How reasonable...   by zyxwvutsr       at Thu 13 Mar 12:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     It's some tortured logic that you engage in to arrive at your conclusions: The US government is putting soliders in harm's way by invading Iraq. A journalist enters Iraq to cover the war. If the US had not invaded Iraq, the journalist would not have had any reason to go there in the first place. Therefore, the US bears some responsibility for journalists being in Iraq If I accept this as reasonable I could point out that, 1. The US is living up to its share of the responsibility by forewarning the journalists. No one is forcing reporters to use satellite phones. 2. Carrying your proposition to its logical conclusion, if Saddam Hussein had lived up to his international obligations for the past dozen years, there would be no need or justification for the US to go to war. Therefore, Saddam Hussein bears some responsibility for the death of any journalists. By ordering this, the Pentagon is saying that soliders are worth more than journalists No, the Pentagon is saying that journalists are worth exactly the same as anyone else. They are also effectively equating journalists with the enemy combatants Not exactly: If an enemy journalist began carrying a rifle, he should expect to be shot by the first American soldier who comes along. The same is true of a satellite phone which, as others in this thread have pointed out, is of potential military use. This implies that there is some sort of adversarial relationship between those whose job it is to report the truth, and the objectives of this military campaign. This seems to indicate that the objectives of the campaign are not as they appear... I don't see the implication. I truly don't.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   49.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by nmiguy       at Thu 13 Mar 12:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 40     Ooh I like that one. A false pretext, but by the time anyone finds out, the whole war is over. Outstanding. Now if the war is over and the crisis is past, how does it matter if it were a false pretext for war? The journalist in you hypothetical game didn't help. But say he DID get his sat phone out and outed the false pretext, the attack is called off and the war tensions still exist while the government continues to look for a genuine (or another false) pretext. Crisis still exists. Which is good for the journalist, not very good for everyone else. That was fun. can we do another?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   51.  Re: How reasonable...   by nmiguy       at Thu 13 Mar 12:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     By ordering this, the Pentagon is saying that soliders are worth more than journalists. Though this may be true to the Pentagon, it is not true by any moral standard. Even if the journalist is Geraldo Rivera? Just joking there. Nobody forces a journalist or war correspondant to go to a hot zone. They take the risk of knowing that they could be killed by either side just for being there. If the journalist can't deal with that risk, and if they don't like having their technology used against them, then "they shouldn't be there in the first place." (Man, I am really losing it.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   52.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by Goldmund       at Thu 13 Mar 12:58pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     Which is good for the journalist, not very good for everyone else. Everyone else? What, like the Iraqi people?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   56.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by tevenson       at Thu 13 Mar 1:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 40     The bombardment comes and destroys the factory and the attack commences and it's not until after the ashes haves settled do we realize that this pretext for war was false. But by then, the damage is done, the war is over. Pretext for war? We don't need no steenking pretext for war!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   59.  Re: How reasonable...   by moominpapa       at Thu 13 Mar 1:23pm score of 1 astute   in reply to comment 45     if Saddam Hussein had lived up to his international obligations for the past dozen years... I don't believe the US Government has proved conclusively that he hasn't. the Pentagon is saying that journalists are worth exactly the same as anyone else. How so? The Pentagon's basic logic (which was sort of the point of this whole thread) seems to read: "Checking whether or not satellite phones are being used by journalists puts solider's lives at risk. We would rather potentially kill journalists than put solider's lives at risk." Therefore, solider's lives are more valuable than journalists - to the Pentagon. The fact that the Pentagon has maintained that they would rather kill journalists than take the time and risk to make sure they aren't targeting a BBC correspondent by mistake implies (to me) that they would much rather not have journalists there at all. This implies a less than friendly attitude toward the press - as a hindrance at best, and certainly not something to risk ones life to protect. Perhaps I overstated my case as regards the "hidden" motives of the military operations in Iraq. Given that I don't believe the US has any right whatsoever to be there, my take on the motivations of our military is slightly paranoid. I'm sure that those who are actually fighting the war are not nearly so suspect in their motives as those who put them over there in the first place. ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   63.  Re: How reasonable...   by moominpapa       at Thu 13 Mar 1:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     I should say rather than "a less than friendly attitude toward the press..." they have a less than friendly attitude toward independent journalists. Journalists that are in the program to go through a "boot camp" of sorts and hang with the troops (assuming of course, that they will report whatever they are told to report and see whatever they are told to see) are most welcome. ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   65.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by KOMPRESSOR       at Thu 13 Mar 1:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 49     Er, just to take a quick guess at whether it might matter... YES. Or, ask the people whose homes were destroyed, family members were killed, etc in the course of an unnecessary war. Do you think they'll agree that it's much better that their house be wrecked / loved one be dead, so that they don't have to worry about whether it might happen. KOMPRESSOR apple: not just a different way, a better way   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   66.  Re: How reasonable...   by moominpapa       at Thu 13 Mar 1:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 51     Why on earth should journalists expect to have "their technology used against them" by the troops that are supposedly "the good guys?" That's ridiculous. It's like saying: typewriters are being used by enemy combatants to send orders to the front lines. If we find anyone with a typewriter, we have to kill them, since taking the time to ascertain whether the person using a typewriter is a journalist puts soliders at risk. People take risks by being in combat zones. One of those risks is accidentally being killed by friendly fire. But if there is a way to mitigate that danger that can reasonably be taken by those who are shooting, then they have a responsibility to do so. ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   68.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by Atlasshrugged00       at Thu 13 Mar 1:41pm score of 1   in reply to comment 40     Goldmund you can come up with a million idiotic ways to twist a story. Bottom line is, press has been warned satcomm signals are bad. Any satcomm signal not immediately recognizable as 'coalition military will' probably be targeted and destroyed before opportunity to investigate further. There are thousands of more important things for military planners to worry about then whether Christine Amanpour is on the other end of the line in the streets of Bagdhad. The rules have been set, if you choose to break those rules so be it, hope the life insurance is paid up. I don't see why it has to be a nefarious plot to counter 1st Amendment rights. War is nasty business but it is the press as eyewitnesses (their mere presence) that will prevent atrocities and the expediency of their messages out has nothing to do with it. You want quick news take a chance on firing up that satphone camera. Don't come crying when a missile nails your ass. My personal opinion is that the media compromises far too many military operations already. When the CNN crews greeted the Marines landing at Somalia - that was a bit much. I'd be all in favor of a taped delay on just about all news coverage - with the understanding that while it may be delayed it will air in its entirety - if it will save our soldiers lives. CNN is Hussein's best source fo intelligence on US troops. Bottom line: Press is notionally protected by Land Warfare Conventions - soldiers, sailors, and airmen are not. Advantage goes to the military...anything endangering them (or potentially endangering them) gets waxed. Satcomm is too difficult to determine friend or foe fast enough. Call at your own risk. See ya   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   70.  Re: How reasonable...   by nmiguy       at Thu 13 Mar 1:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     But if there is a way to mitigate that danger that can reasonably be taken by those who are shooting, then they have a responsibility to do so. Oh, you mean like warning the journalists that using their sat phones could result in a MOAB being dropped on their heads? Hey, whataya know? Task accomplished.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   72.  Re: How reasonable...   by moominpapa       at Thu 13 Mar 1:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 70     That's not enough. "You really shouldn't use a typewriter during the war. We won't be checking who's using them and there's no way we can guarantee you won't get shot." If someone is going to die due to my inaction, I am responsible for their death. A "warning" that they can't use the tools of their trade because the military values journalists lives so little that they'd rather kill them than check and make sure they're not enemy combatants is simply not sufficient. Human life is worth more than a warning. ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   81.  Re: How reasonable...   by nmiguy       at Thu 13 Mar 2:24pm score of 1   in reply to comment 72     We are not talking about typewriters here. We are talking about bombs that home in on radiowaves and satellite communications. A warning is more than sufficient. Common sense combined with a warning seems incredibly generous. You know if you jump off a building you may die. If I warn you that jumping off a building may cause your death, that should be sufficient, the warning and the common sense. Also, as far as "inaction" as you put it. If you took the action and time and resources to check the satphone and determine it is a journalist who is not aiding the enemy's intelligence, you are taking away the time spent of saving other lives, like troops etc. The warning is about as fair as your going to get in a war. All's fair in love and war. The journalists know don't do it. If they do and if they die, it is THEIR OWN fault.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   83.  Re: How reasonable...   by moominpapa       at Thu 13 Mar 2:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 81     You know if you jump off a building you may die. If I warn you that jumping off a building may cause your death, that should be sufficient, the warning and the common sense. Your analogy is poor. Its more like - We're on top of said building. I'm walking back and forth, from edge to edge. If you happen to be in my path as I walk, you will get pushed off the roof. By me. And then I will be able to say it was your fault for standing in my way, since I have warned you. The warning is about as fair as your going to get in a war. Which is just one more reason to oppose war, since it gives people the excuse to act immoral and believe they are being pragmatic. ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   85.  Re: How reasonable...   by peanutfish       at Thu 13 Mar 2:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     if Saddam Hussein had lived up to his international obligations for the past dozen years... I don't believe the US Government has proved conclusively that he hasn't. ummm... it's not up to the u.s. gov't. to prove he hasn't. it's up to him to prove he has. you understand that's what iraq's weapons report & 1441 were about, don't you? Some mistakes are too much fun to make only once.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   87.  Re: How reasonable...   by jd142       at Thu 13 Mar 2:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 43     The press being in the middle of the combat zone hampers that. It's hard to surprise the enemy when your troop status is on CNN every hour. I'd buy that argument more if the pentagon weren't adopting soldiers and putting them right in with our troops. The idea of course is two fold: 1) scare the pee out of the journalist, because they're all namby-pamby leftist elitist and need to be shown how real men act and 2) control absolutely the flow of information not just to keep military plans a secret but to put their own media spin on what is occuring. The idea, I suspect, is that the journalists will be slightly more disoriented than normal and more likely to report the military's point of view and then not want to say that they got it wrong later once the facts are in. Anymore, the pentagon wants the press to report just how many soldiers we have, just how big our dicks -- I mean MOAB bombs -- are to scare the enemy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   88.  Re: How reasonable...   by nmiguy       at Thu 13 Mar 2:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 83     We're on top of said building. I'm walking back and forth, from edge to edge. If you happen to be in my path as I walk, you will get pushed off the roof. By me. And then I will be able to say it was your fault for standing in my way, since I have warned you. Okay, okay, I'll stay out of your way! Don't push me off! I have learned 3 things about you: 1 you oppose war 2 you have a soft spot for journalists 3 don't stand on a roof with you. - nmiguy   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   90.  Re: How reasonable...   by moominpapa       at Thu 13 Mar 3:01pm score of 1   in reply to comment 85     Actually, as someone else pointed out on Plastic, Saddam's current position is rather untenable, in that he's basically being asked to prove he doesn't have something. In which case, someone can always say, "He's lying, we just haven't found them yet!" So, though I would agree he's a dictator, despot, etc. I also feel kinda sorry for the guy, in that he's in the position of the man who's asked, "When did you stop beating your wife?" But, this is probably the last I want to talk about this, given that I have to get on with my life. ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   91.  Re: How reasonable...   by moominpapa       at Thu 13 Mar 3:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 88     That was funny. Sorry, didn't mean to spook you. No need for me to make this personal. As far as my soft spot goes, you're quite kind in saying it's for journalists. Most usually say it's somewhere on my head.... ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   96.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by Goldmund       at Thu 13 Mar 3:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 68     You can come up with a million rationalizations for this, bottom line is, the Military is trying to bully journalists into not reporting from warzones. I don't see why it has to be a nefarious plot to counter 1st Amendment rights. War is nasty business but it is the press as eyewitnesses (their mere presence) that will prevent atrocities and the expediency of their messages out has nothing to do with it. You see, I do, since the presense of the press has already been taken care of through handlers, embedding and a whole host of psyops that the military has learned about since Vietnam and Gulf War I. Like it or not, this IS a nefarious plot to silence reporting of possible atrocities that will most likely occur in Baghdad since the fighting may very well be street to street, building to building. You want quick news take a chance on firing up that satphone camera. Don't come crying when a missile nails your ass. My personal opinion is that the media compromises far too many military operations already. My personal opinion, there's far too much military action going on without cameras on those involved, just as there is too much police work going on without cameras on them. It's a tough break that the US military has to deal with our semi-transparent society, but it's a fact they're going to have to deal with. If the government is forcing us to submit our lives in the public sphere to cameras, I don't see why our military shouldn't have them, as well. I mean, it's not like our military has ever made any mistakes they'd like to forget about, is it? I mean, what are they so afraid of?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   105.  Re: How reasonable...   by zyxwvutsr       at Thu 13 Mar 5:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 59     Things that are hazardous to your health while travelling in Iraq: Standing near antiaircraft sites Loitering in the vicinity of Iraqi government communications facilities Taking up residence in a neighborhood next to a military base Accompanying an Iraqi army unit in the field The above ought to be common sense to anyone with enough brains to be a foreign reporter, as should this: Operating a satellite telephone in Iraqi territory considered by the US forces to be hostile I cannot feel more sympathy for a journalist who uses a sat-phone than for one who decided to camp out near an antiaircraft site. And what you call "[t]he Pentagon's basic logic" seems quite sound to me. Yet it is not about the relative worth of any single individual's life over any other. The US military leadership, if they are told to do so, will enter Iraq with a simple goal: To win a war. As noted by a number of other comments in this thread, it is is simply not feasible for the US to figure out which communications sites are hostile and which are innocent. A key portion of any US war plan would be to totally disrupt Iraq's command and control infrastructure. Doing that quickly and effectively would, in the long run, shorten the war and reduce casualties on both sides. That having been said, it seems to me that you are confusing the issue of whether this tactic is appropriate with whether the war would be just. The two are not entirely unrelated, but the former is a military decision while the latter is a political decision made by those Americans with the Constitutional authority to do so.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   112.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by Atlasshrugged00       at Thu 13 Mar 6:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 96     Break out the tin foil cap Goldie. Guess you won't be happy till every American soldier has a KGB-equivalent handler. Maybe you can break away from your burger flipping job and volunteer.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   114.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by Goldmund       at Thu 13 Mar 7:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 112     No, but I'd sure like it if every soldier knew, deep down that there would never be anything they could get away with while using the cover of the 'warzone' to hide their deeds. I understand the necessity of war, but why is it necessary in your mind for the soldiers to be able to bully and actively prevent journalists from reporting what is actually happening. I'm not talking about troop movements or number of soldiers in a battalion, I'm talking about when some soldiers decide to burn a villiage or murder some 'suspect' civilians. Keeping reporters around keeps soldiers honest. Honestly, I think this is probably just the DoD admitting that they don't have the technology or the manpower to track down and identify every one of those signals. So, rather than admit to the press (and, the enemy) that they don't have the capability to disguish between the different signals, and possibly expose a weakness; they instead issue a vague and menacing threat to the media establishment. It's a heavy-handed tactic and conjures up images of the military premptively covering their asses. It just worries me, that's all, no need to belittle me as a crackpot.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   115.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by zyxwvutsr       at Thu 13 Mar 7:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 114     No, but I'd sure like it if every soldier knew, deep down that there would never be anything they could get away with while using the cover of the 'warzone' to hide their deeds Um. You mean the Iraqi soldiers? You must mean that, because the American soldiers will be travelling with American journalists attached to their units.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   116.  Re: How reasonable...   by mad_clown       at Thu 13 Mar 7:55pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     The US government is putting soliders in harm's way by invading Iraq. A journalist enters Iraq to cover the war. I really hate to break it to ya, but it's sort of a soldier's JOB to go into harm's way, should his government ask him or her to do so. On top of that, it's a 100% volunteer force, which means that the people who enlist probably know the potential risks. That is, unless they're just enlisting for the sweet benefits and are unwilling to do their duty when the time comes, in which case they're miserable parasites. If the US had not invaded Iraq, the journalist would not have had any reason to go there in the first place. If Saddam Hussein didn't have such a history of obfuscation, aggression, and brutality, the US wouldn't have had to send troops there in the first place... If Great Britian hadn't unified the Mosul, Baghdad, and Basra provinces of Iraq in the 1920's, Iraq as we know it wouldn't exist and Saddam Hussein wouldn't have come to power in the first place... If the Spanish Armada had beaten the British navy, then Great Britain might not have become the globe-spanning imperial power that it did and it wouldn't have ended up uniting those three territories in the first place. Etc., ad nauseam. You can play this blame-shifting game all you want, but the fact remains that any reporters who become casualties after putting themselves deliberately in harm's way and ignoring warnings from the military have only themselves to blame. To simply say, "It's war, and if a journalist goes in there, they have to expect to be shot at," is wrong. Actually, that's not wrong. That's pretty much the way it happens in every other war zone in the world. If you deliberately put yourself in harm's way, you have to understand the consequences. It's not the U.S. military's job to watch out for everyone who may be in a war zone of their own free will. The same thing applies to any of those "human shields" who may still be left guarding Iraqi military installations. They put themselves there of their own free will. They're not the U.S. military's responsibility. It's not like the military is going to be deliberately gunning for journalists simply in order to make sure "the truth(tm)" doesn't get out. It's simply saying that if people who have deliberately put themselves into harm's way and who do things that make them essentially indistinguishable from the enemy, they could be potential targets, because the cost of waiting around to sort out "the good guys' signals" from "the bad guys' signals" could cost American lives and Iraqi lives as well. They've had fair warning. They can choose to ignore it and run the risk of being bombed, or they can heed it and use other methods of disseminating the same information. The choice to be there is theirs, and the choice of what to do now that they're there is also theirs. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   117.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by mad_clown       at Thu 13 Mar 8:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 96     bottom line is, the Military is trying to bully journalists into not reporting from warzones. No they're not. They're simply saying "don't use satellite phones, or you could become a target." Reporters have been reporting from war zones for decades using things that aren't satellite phones. As far as I know, the military hasn't given any warnings about those things. Are airlines trying to limit free speech by telling people not to use cellphones or GPS units during flights? No. They're concerned about people's safety. Same for the military here. They're concerned about the reporters' safety. They realized that a) the enemy may be using satellite signals to transmit intelligence, orders, etc., which makes them a legitimate target b) reporters might also be using this kind of technology to transmit war reports and finally c) it's very difficult and time consuming to differentiate between the two. Therefore, they're simply telling journalists not to use this sort of technology when they're in a war zone because it poses a risk to themselves, the military, and civilians. They're still free to use whatever else they've had at their disposal for years to disseminate information. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   123.  Re: How reasonable...   by Chef       at Thu 13 Mar 10:10pm score of 1   in reply to comment 29     If the administration wasn't trying to wage an illegal war against the puniest military in the world there would be no need for the journalists. No story no journalist Journalists worth there salt are willing to report real news in a war like this. They get in harms way by being there, but then do Iraqi children, mothers, fathers, grandmothers, and granfathers by being there. Some one should be there to witness for these people. But it is better for the politicos if the public doesn't see little girls with arms and legs blown off. Thus the logic of getting rid of the Journalist along with the little girls. Dissent is not a right, it's an obligation.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   124.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by Atlasshrugged00       at Thu 13 Mar 10:42pm score of 1   in reply to comment 114     Thanks for the false argument, I never said soldiers can bully anyone or actively prevent journalists from doing anything. Soldiers have more important things to do. And yes impartial viewers tend to keep things honest...on both sides. But you seem to assume a lot of malicious intent on the part of our soldiers...where most times (with very rare exception) there is none. Why don't we accept that the soldiers will do the right thing? You know they have to live with themselves afterwards regardless of what the press sees...seems like pretty good intrinsic (rather than extrinsic) motivation to me. There is no question that DoD can't track everyone of those signals, which is why they have announced very clearly that clearing of fires will not include searching out every journalist with a satcomm phone. Caveat emptor to those reporters. Some of your links in your last post were very crackpot so I think a ref to tinfoil hats are still appropriate.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   126.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by snarkism       at Thu 13 Mar 11:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 115     because the American soldiers will be travelling with American journalists attached to their units. ALL of them will be? I don't think so. Looked like you believed the big lie. Journalists will only be placed on operations that the government WANTS you to see. It's purely for PR purposes. snarkism That's using your ass.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   128.  Re: How reasonable...   by stevetherobot       at Fri 14 Mar 6:56am score of 1   in reply to comment 66     But if there is a way to mitigate that danger that can reasonably be taken by those who are shooting, then they have a responsibility to do so. Well one way to mitigate that danger might be to tell them that you plan on bombing any satellite signal you see. Did it ever occur to you that you might be wrong? Yes, once. But I was mistaken.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   130.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by Goldmund       at Fri 14 Mar 7:08am score of 1   in reply to comment 124     But you seem to assume a lot of malicious intent on the part of our soldiers...where most times (with very rare exception) there is none. Rare Exceptions? Read a little military history (not the official, white-washed versions) and open your eyes to the fact that war is hell and used as cover for all sorts of nasty deeds. Now, our military hasn't had a long history of well-publicized atrocities, but they do have their own secrets and rather than give them the opportunity to screw over innocent civilians again, I'd like to have semi-independent personnel have an opportunity to observe them. What's so terrible about having monitors on the people with guns? What are you so afraid of? Which links, specifically, were crackpot? The ones about atomic testing on our troops? You do realize that the US has tested over 1000 nuclear devices over the last 60 years, 400+ of which were atmospheric tests over the US Mainland. Was it the shoddy web pages? Because there is plenty of legit info, but you have to get past the amateur web design. As for the sciforums link, I'll admit that was stretching it a bit, but still valid as many of those claims can be partially verified by FOIA releases. The others are references to the Iranian Airliner that was shot down in 1988 and the friendly fire bombardment of Candian troops in afghanistan by cracked-out pilots, hardly crackpot territory. Why don't we accept that the soldiers will do the right thing? Because in too many instances, they don't. Why is is so hard for you to accept that maybe our paid, trained, professional killers need to have someone watching over them while they are out killing people? Plenty of serial killers and murderers live with themselves after they commit their gruesome acts, what makes them different from a soldier who uses his job as an opportunity to do heinous things? You go ahead and trust the military to do the right thing, for the record, I wish I had your trust, but history compells me to refrain from believing them and actively fight any request they have for more secrecy. Rather than disagree with my claims or actively discredit them, you choose an ad hominem attack and call me a crackpot. Ok, then in the spirit of the moment, I'd like you to know that I think you are terribly naive and uninformed. Read a little history, study some warfare accounts and note that during wartime, there has historically been no one to hold the soldiers accountable for their acts.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   132.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by zyxwvutsr       at Fri 14 Mar 7:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 126     Journalists will only be placed on operations that the government WANTS you to see. It's purely for PR purposes Yes, it's true. There will be no reporters assigned to the American Rape and Pillage Battalions. To do so might thwart Bush's long-term plan to subjugate and torture the Iraqi people.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   133.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 14 Mar 7:47am score of 1   in reply to comment 130     Hmm let me see, maybe because I am one of those paid, trained, professional killers you like to degrade. One of those soldiers who still trains to ensure that our soldiers aren't the beasts that you insinuate they are. One of those soldiers who understands there is no advantage to commiting the heinous crimes you believe all American soldiers are just 'waiting for an opportunity to do.' One of those soldiers who knows that failure to train his men can mean death for them or worse dishonor (and jail) for them and me if something like you suggest occurs. I was educated at the United States Military Academy (like my father and brother before me). Father has served in Nam and Korea, brother has served in Bosnia - and pulled the bodies of his burned comrades from the remnants of the Pentagon where he himself was almost killed on 9/11/01. Other brother served in Desert Storm with the 101st Airborne. I myself served 7.5 years on active duty with a tour in Bosnia. I have served another 3 years and am looking down the barrel at a second tour in Bosnia starting next year with the National Guard. I read a balance of military history because I understand the virtue of a balanced mind. I read a balance of news because I understand sources can be skewed. I read Plastic in part for the same reasons. Sun Tzu says 'one must know one's opponent as one knows themselves.' I have a Masters degree in Technical Management and am working on a PhD in Leadership. My education extends beyond whatever self-justification ploy you plan to pull out in your next response. I have actively disagreed with everyone of your claims and I have discredited you because your source of information is flawed. In any statistical sample you will find outlyers. Some of your web authors are outlyers. Because someone is capable of putting up a website does not make them authorities on any subject. Teenage kids can make websites - that doesn't make them an authority on history. History is written by primary sources, those present at the action - not third hand drivel drawn up from the tinfoil crowd. (Next you'll send me the website of the plane NOT hitting the Pentagon) The other reports were what one calls accidents - bombing the Canadians and the airliner....I am sure there is malicious intent involved in both instances. These were just opportunities for those bloodthirsty maniacs to kill Canadians. Because apparently that is what we love to do. One thing I am not is naive or uninformed. War is nasty, we all agree and sometimes things get out of hand. But the press will never be a proactive stop to those rare occasions they will only be a reactive source of information after the damage is done. They don't even serve as a viable deterrent. The deterrent is the Rules of Engagement and the Laws of Land Warfare established by the Geneva and Hague Conventions - the ones are soldiers are constantly educated on - especially prior to 'actions on the objective'. These guides and orders define who to shoot, what to shoot, when to shoot, where to shoot and why to shoot. Soldiers understand that to do otherwise is to a) disobey the lawful orders of those appointed over them b) risk military tribunal for war crimes c) live with the repercussions of accidents or poor decisions. Having walked a mile in the moccasins of the American soldier I feel better informed to tell you you are full of shit. When you gain that similar experience - or even education - you may be qualified to refute me. Until then enjoy the comfort of the security which the American soldier provides you with in your blissful slumber of ill-will and uneducated hubris.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   134.  I like that one   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 14 Mar 8:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 132     I'm the Bn Operations officer for the 1-36 IN Rape and Pillage Battalion (not really Goldmund). Got lots of planning to do because we will be raping and pillaging all night. Of course we are sorely overtasked because they decided they wanted us to burn and maim too. They also took a company of our soldiers over to the Destroy Civilian Buildings Wantonly unit. I'm not sure our soldiers are properly trained for burning and maiming so we'll be doing a block of instruction in the assembly areas prior to SP. We're going to do classroom instruction followed by a practical exercise. Then we will have all the Bn leadership practice their parts on a huge sandtable. After the Bn rehearsal we will do a CSS rehearsal - need lots of extra fuel supplies for all that burning, and maybe some surgical tools for the maiming part. Finally as we are mounting our vehicles we will do a final radio rehearsal so everyone understands their job - raping, pillaging, and the new tasks of burning and maiming. Hope those pesky reporters don't overhear our plans. (none of this is true Goldmund - I wanted to make sure because you seem to have a bad habit believing anything you read on the web).   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   136.  Re: How reasonable...   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 14 Mar 8:18am score of 1   in reply to comment 87     Ever hear of this guy? He wore a uniform and travelled with the troops. Never reported less than the truth. Or how bout this guy? Same thing, same story in the least popular war in American history. Maybe you saw him as Barry Pepper in this movie. Jounarlists and the military don't have to be at odds.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   137.  Re: How reasonable...   by moominpapa       at Fri 14 Mar 9:42am score of 1   in reply to comment 105     That having been said, it seems to me that you are confusing the issue of whether this tactic is appropriate with whether the war would be just. The two are not entirely unrelated, but the former is a military decision while the latter is a political decision made by those Americans with the Constitutional authority to do so. Both decisions are neither primarily military or political in nature. They are ethical and moral questions, and the fact that many of those who are making the decisions (let alone those who are on this board discussing those decisions) are not addressing them as such leaves little hope for those who hope for peace. ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   141.  Re: I like that one   by Ajax       at Fri 14 Mar 12:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 134     Make sure they each have a hard copy of the document specifying in which order these tasks are to be performed, is my advice. There's nothing more damaging to morale than realizing that the unit has started the burning before the raping... "Coca-Cola® and Armageddon® / We like it, like it, yes we do!" -- Clutch.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   142.  Re: I like that one   by Atlasshrugged00       at Fri 14 Mar 1:04pm score of 1   in reply to comment 141     Goes along with the old Viking joke: A young Viking is about to go out on his first village raid and pillaging adventure when an grizzled old timer says "Son, you know you're job right? We go in fast we kill the livestock, rape the women, steal their stuff and burn their houses." Upon their return worn, tired, and injured the old-timer grabs the young lad again and "Look let me repeat we kill the livestock and rape the women."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   145.  Re: How reasonable...   by jd142       at Sat 15 Mar 6:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 136     a) I don't think today's "journalists" can hold a candle to Pyle. And don't forget photographers like Kappa. b) Just because there are exceptions in the past doesn't mean today's reporters are their equals. Where are the Edward R. Murrows of today to challenge the new McCarthyism? c) I don't necessarily think reporters are all going to run scared, I was trying to characterize how some of the more macho commanders think. Or at least how I think the commanders think. d) Even very good, very brave war reporters can get fed a line of bull from the army and not have the means or time to verify it. They are human too. e) The military and journalists to not have to be at odds, but when they have different goals, they must be. The military doesn't want you to know when they accidentally bomb a school. They don't want you to know that their accuracy right for their missiles is 20% not 100% (a www.wsws.org link). So when their goals are different, they must be at odds. In the case of the missiles, it took 10 years for the truth to be publicized.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   146.  Re: Oh, oh - let me play...   by semorel       at Sat 15 Mar 10:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 40     Hmm, same journalist only this time it really is a what everyone with real intelligence decides it is. Said idiot decides to set up a link to show what he finds out about the same time they are getting ready to attack. Should they attack? What if someone wraps info within a signal sending out news? What if a reporter is being paid to send out code words to give certain info? What if, what if, what if. There is no such thing as a selfless act. We get something out of everything we do!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   147.  Re: How reasonable...   by semorel       at Sat 15 Mar 11:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 41     So you are saying that a soldier should be put at risk because you want to know what is going on. The really interesting thing about this is that you are saying that the government is making the reporter go there. They are not doing that in any way. In actuality, the people that watch the news are more responsible than the US gov. There are other ways for the reporters to get info out. They could use short wave radio. It travels fast enough for the news to be relevant. It is not capable of sending a video signal, but is that really important? There is no such thing as a selfless act. We get something out of everything we do!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   148.  Re: How reasonable...   by semorel       at Sat 15 Mar 11:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 66     It's not the same. You can easily determine if a person with a typewriter is a threat to you. The satt link is not the same. It would be closer to a reporter broadcasting via TV in a site that has a sniper. A soldier sees the glint off of the camera. What would you do? I would have the biggest gun available to me blast the living hell out of the glint, then look around for another (of course, this is assuming that I know where the friendly troops are). There is no such thing as a selfless act. We get something out of everything we do!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   157.  Re: How reasonable...   by moominpapa       at Mon 17 Mar 10:04am score of 1   in reply to comment 147     Good point about the short wave radio. That would somewhat mitigate the danger. I think one of the things that got to me and which I'm sure many people have mentioned on this story, is the cavilier attitude with which the Pentagon is treating the whole matter. Just from their tone, it is easy to infer that they regard the lives of journalists as being of no account. Given that I have yet to believe any of the justifications for the US being in Iraq in the first place, given my inherent mistrust of the military, given my pacifist tendencies, my overall take on this story is easily explained, even if one doesn't agree with it. ... so I GAFB - Another Freakin' Blog   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   158.  Re: How reasonable...   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Mon 17 Mar 10:30am score of 1   in reply to comment 145     (a www.wsws.org link). [for anyone in a hurry, I wouldn't bother clicking that link.] stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   170.  Re: How reasonable...   by semorel       at Tue 18 Mar 12:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 157     The problem is not that we have a cavalier attitude about reporters. Instead I would suggest that it is the attitude we have when dealing with anyone that is not doing what we want. I would say that our government has become controlling. We are attempting to control any and everyone. The belief that we have the right to control another person is one of the symptoms of an abusive person. It makes one wonder if we would be considered abusive if countries were treated as people. There is no such thing as a selfless act. We get something out of everything we do!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: How unreasonable...   by moxen       at Thu 13 Mar 9:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     It seems like the slope is slippery in all directions here, but you have to wonder about the rationale for destroying Iraq's link to the outside world. We are attacking a nation with no military allies, after all. Of course, you can choose to believe that Iraq (the only secular government in the Middle East) and al-Qaeda (a radical fundamentalist movement) are in cahoots, but Washington has yet to come up with anything more convincing than the fact that an al-Qaeda operative was in Iraq. At any rate, what are the threats incurred by allowing satellite uplinks from within Iraq? I just don't see what the problem could be.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: How unreasonable...   by stankow       at Thu 13 Mar 9:38am score of 1   in reply to comment 9     you have to wonder about the rationale for destroying Iraq's link to the outside world. Because it's not just the outside world. It's entirely possible that the leadership of Iraq would use such signals to communicate with their own forces. And if you can't destroy the enemy, the next best thing is to leave him sitting out there in the sand not knowing where he's supposed to go.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   18.  Re: How unreasonable...   by bradley547       at Thu 13 Mar 9:42am score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 9     "At any rate, what are the threats incurred by allowing satellite uplinks from within Iraq? I just don't see what the problem could be." The problem is that satelite communications could be from the Iraqi top brass to the commanders in the field. Something we'd want to stop. You know, "cutting the head off the snake" and all. Unfortunately, all such communications are encrypted, as are all news feeds. In fact, all satelite communications are encrypted to some degree to protect privacy and prevent hackers taking over satelite signals. While it's possible to break the encryption, it's difficult to do in real time, and probably impossible to do from the cockpit of an EA-6. I'd say it's just the Pentagon giving fair warning.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Bullshit   by gaspacho       at Thu 13 Mar 10:51am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 18     While it's possible to break the encryption, it's difficult to do in real time, and probably impossible to do from the cockpit of an EA-6. If you have the key, it's not difficult at all: Anyone with a cable or satellite descrambler at home is decoding a similar audio/video signal in real time. We dont need NSA computers on board every aircraft to decode such signals, all the US military would have to do is have a little talk with the broadcaster to gain access. Aside from that, there's a BIG difference between the type of signal that would be sent by a military force, and the video/audio signal that a news agency would be using. They'd use very different encodings, different encryption methods, and probably not even be in the same frequency band. If the USAF is really claming that they'll be lobbing cruise missles at every damn electromagnetic signature they see, than this planned war is even more insane than I had thought. Civilian cellphones. Medical equipment. Small civilian transmitters. Hell, a badly-designed generator will emit an EM signal. I guess we'll just be blowing them ALL up, just to be sure. socialism is bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   39.  Re: Bullshit   by bradley547       at Thu 13 Mar 11:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 31     No Bullshit. Satelite communications operate in a very specific set of microwave bandwidths. To assume that the Iraqi command structure is going to play fair and only use the bandwidths reserved for military communications is naive at best. And as for your comment "all the US military would have to do is have a little talk with the broadcaster to gain access." I'm sure everyone involved will be more than happy to oblige THAT request. "What, the US Military wants the key to reading every bit of data that goes through our networks? Well No Problem! Here ya go!" Keep in mind we don't own space. Not every satelite link is ours to play with. You don't think the Iraqis may use satelites put up by, oh I don't know, say THE FRENCH?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   50.  Re: Bullshit   by gaspacho       at Thu 13 Mar 12:43pm score of 2 informative   in reply to comment 39     Satelite communications operate in a very specific set of microwave bandwidths. To assume that the Iraqi command structure is going to play fair and only use the bandwidths reserved for military communications is naive at best. And blasting the bejeezuz out of anything that moves, without some reasonable assurances that the source is not civilian, is tantamount to a war crime. As far as I know Bruce Willis isn't head of the Joint Chiefs of Staff yet. Here's some info on satcoms for anyone who cares about the technical aspects. There's a lot more to a "signal" than its carrier frequency. How wide is it (bandwidth)? How is it encoded? Is it encrypted? Never mind the fact that a military signal is probably going to be spread-spectrum (frequency-hopping) and not the much simpler single-frequency signal you'd see coming from (for example) CNN's satellite uplink. An information-bearing signal of military value would have very different (and therefore distinguishable) characteristics from the sort of AV signals which would be sent by roving reporters. A clever engineering student could define a real-time algorithm to do so in a matter of hours, so I still find the US military's claim that it must destroy all EM targets with extreme prejudice "just in case" to be complete and total BS. If you wish to participate in the national hard-on that is the upcoming Iraq war, I certainly cant stop you, but math is math, and physics is physics, and no amount of chest-puffing Orwellian spin is going to change that. socialism is bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   60.  Re: Bullshit   by bradley547       at Thu 13 Mar 1:25pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     Math is math and physics is physics, and Technology is Technology. And anybody using a PCS cell phone or a 3G capable communications device is using encryption and spread spectrum technology. I'ts not just the military using it folks. Asking the military to in real time filter out any civilian usage from any military usage is ridiculous. I think they've taken a very reasonable step towards protecting the civilian poplace by informing them up front not to use technology that might be mistaken for military usage when the bombs start falling.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   64.  Re: Bullshit   by zyxwvutsr       at Thu 13 Mar 1:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 50     ...so I still find the US military's claim that it must destroy all EM targets with extreme prejudice "just in case" to be complete and total BS To be accurate, the US Military hasn't made that claim. Thus far only Kate Adie has.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   69.  this is absurd   by joyful immolation       at Thu 13 Mar 1:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 39     as far as I've heard, no one thinks that the Iraqi military has a shit's chance in a hurricane of standing up to this invasion. Also as far as I've heard, every from Tommy Franks on down has been saying that the most difficult and important part of this war will be PR, reputation, "winning hearts and minds". Not just for political reasons, but military ones. All that has to be done here is for some journalists to call the Pentagon's bluff. It's crazy to think the NSA can't read any sattelite uplink it wants. We've had this technology for forever and ever, it's been a big part of the hunt for Bin Laden. What I read this as is that the Pentagon would sure like to intimidate journalists into not using tools that could help them circumvent censorship, but it's a bluff. Does anyone here really think the Pentagon is going to nuke the entire world media population in Baghdad because they can't be bothered to decrypt the communications? One incident, one death, would lead to an outcry. More than 5 deaths or two incidents might cost Franks his job. A serious massacre could end the war. this city's dance/makes you feel so cold, it's got/so many people, but it's got no soul-   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   99.  Re: Bullshit   by gaspacho       at Thu 13 Mar 4:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 60     PCS/3G spectrum is considerably below that of what a video uplink would be using (1.7GHz - 2.1GHz range, vs the 3.6GHz - 31GHz range for sats) so I don't see your point here. No one should ever mistake a video uplink for Saddam's PCS phone. Here's two more footnotes for the casually interested. Asking the military to in real time filter out any civilian usage from any military usage is ridiculous. Yes, much more sensible to go in blasting anything that moves, regardless of how easy it is to distinguish friend from foe. Makes for better copy. socialism is bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   101.  Re: Bullshit   by stankow       at Thu 13 Mar 4:29pm score of 1   in reply to comment 99     And of course, the Iraqis are far too stupid to, say, use a similar signal to communicate with their forces, knowing that the Americans won't drop a bomb anywhere near such a transmitter. Whew.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   108.  Re: Bullshit   by gaspacho       at Thu 13 Mar 6:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 101     And of course, the Iraqis are far too stupid to, say, use a similar signal to communicate with their forces, knowing that the Americans won't drop a bomb anywhere near such a transmitter. Using a narrow-beam satellite band signal, pointed UP at some satellite in geosynchronous orbit, would be pretty stupid if the intention was to give orders and information to troops on the ground. socialism is bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   109.  Re: Bullshit   by stankow       at Thu 13 Mar 6:22pm score of 1   in reply to comment 108     Using a narrow-beam satellite band signal, pointed UP at some satellite in geosynchronous orbit, would be pretty stupid if the intention was to give orders and information to troops on the ground. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that we were talking about reporters who were broadcasting to Jupiter. What? You mean those signals get processed and bounced back down to Earth, where people can decode those signals and gain information from them? Well, then it's a good thing that Iraq doesn't know that. Otherwise, it might have, say, used a similar process to transmit orders to their military forces. Whew.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   111.  Re: Bullshit   by gaspacho       at Thu 13 Mar 6:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 109     Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that we were talking about reporters who were broadcasting to Jupiter. Your irrational bloodlust has made you either distastefully smug, or profoundly stupid. Well, then it's a good thing that Iraq doesn't know that. Otherwise, it might have, say, used a similar process to transmit orders to their military forces. Whew. Them signals, they ain't "bounced" willy-nilly to random destinations. They are retransmitted/relayed to particular ground stations, by design. I didn't realize that Iraqi military headquarters was located in Atlanta or New York. socialism is bad!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   120.  Re: Bullshit   by eduardo       at Thu 13 Mar 8:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 111     Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that we were talking about reporters who were broadcasting to Jupiter. Your irrational bloodlust has made you either distastefully smug, or profoundly stupid. Gaspacho, thanks! It's people like you that make Anglos think we have really bad tempers for no reason. What Stankow told you is very true. Satelite phones do not require the other party to be a ground station. In fact, Sat phones aren't really such a big deal: Whether you're on safari, hunting big game in Alaska, fishing a thousand miles from shore, or just making another corporate business trip ... we can keep you in touch with your world Note how they said "... in touch with your world" and not " ... in touch with the CNN studios in Atlanta." In fact, if "your world" consists of Akhbar in Air Defence HQ, there's absolutely no reason why you can't use the "process to transmit orders to their military forces", as per Stankow. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   138.  Re: Bullshit   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Fri 14 Mar 10:31am score of 1   in reply to comment 111     Them signals, they ain't "bounced" willy-nilly to random destinations. They are retransmitted/relayed to particular ground stations, by design. I didn't realize that Iraqi military headquarters was located in Atlanta or New York. Did you consider that the Iraqi military might, like, buy two or more satellite phones? That's what the Chechens did in 1995-96, you know. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Re: How unreasonable...   by Gorvernaut       at Thu 13 Mar 9:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     what the military during a war should do, of course, is detect the signal, then spend precious time decoding it to determine if it is a military signal or a civilian signal. Oh, and make sure that it isn't a military signal desguised as a civilian signal.   Sarcasm aside, it's perfectly reasonable to expect the military to do just that. If a pilot sees a building marked as a hospital, should she "waste precious time" discovering whether it's actually a hospital, or she bomb it anyway? Just as not all buildings are barracks, not all transmissions are military transmissions. The laws of warfare demand at least some scrutiny be given to making the distinction between civilian and military.     There are plenty of was to get information out of Iraq without using satellites....   Yeah, like courier pigeons and pay phones. Oh, and messages stuck in bottles and tossed into the mighty Tigris and Euphrates to begin their long journey into the Persian Gulf, then into the ocean currents, and finally onto some beach on the other side of the world. Satellite phones are the most reliable form of communication in many parts of the world, especially ones in crisis. Imagining otherwise doesn't make it so.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   19.  Re: How unreasonable...   by FatRatBastard       at Thu 13 Mar 9:43am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Sarcasm aside, it's perfectly reasonable to expect the military to do just that. If a pilot sees a building marked as a hospital, should she "waste precious time" discovering whether it's actually a hospital, or she bomb it anyway? Just as not all buildings are barracks, not all transmissions are military transmissions. The laws of warfare demand at least some scrutiny be given to making the distinction between civilian and military. Yes, its totally reasonable to expect a pilot to take his time to investigate the source of a signal to determine whether or not its a reporter uploading the latest news from Bagdad, some Iraqi ground troops radioing in details of allied troop movements or an surface-to-air missile launcher painting him with radar and about to fire a rocket up his ass. Hell, anyone can make that decision in a fraction of a second. Plastic: documenting the growing irrelevance of the left since 2000.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   23.  Re: How unreasonable...   by Gorvernaut       at Thu 13 Mar 9:58am score of 1.5 compelling   in reply to comment 19     Targets are selected by intelligence officers after some analysis, not by pilots in a fraction of a second. Of course, the intelligence officers sometimes fuck up, like in Belgrade when we bombed the Chinese embassy. Other times, pilots decide to take the initiative and fuck up all on their own, like the guys who bombed the Canadians in Afghanistan. Misleading talk about the supposed need for split-second reactions doesn't justify war crimes. The military has both the legal obligation and the technological capability to discriminate between civilian targets.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   25.  Re: How unreasonable...   by bradley547       at Thu 13 Mar 10:10am score of 1   in reply to comment 23     "Targets are selected by intelligence officers after some analysis, not by pilots in a fraction of a second." Not entirely true. EW aircraft will loiter around an area looking for transitory emissions within a set bandwith, like mobile microwave transmitters. The kind used by the military when its on the move. Also the kind used by the news media in the field. Since they are mobile, waiting for an intel officer to select and plan a mission to destroy it would be self defeating. Depending on their ROE, they may or may not be authorized to fire on it. My guess is that the Pentagon has already decided that if it sticks it's head up, to pound it down.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: How unreasonable...   by FatRatBastard       at Thu 13 Mar 10:24am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 23     Misleading talk about the supposed need for split-second reactions doesn't justify war crimes. Yes, because in the heat of battle there is never any need for split second decision making... but lets get back to your main point: Targets are selected by intelligence officers after some analysis, not by pilots in a fraction of a second.... The military has both the legal obligation and the technological capability to discriminate between civilian targets. So, you're a reporter and you're traveling in and around Bagdad reporting on the war live. Iraqi troops are also moving around uploading reports of troop movements, receiving orders, etc. Remember, these satellite phones are small and portable. How long does will it take to find the signal, process it (which probably means breaking encryption) and figuring out if its General Akbar or Kate Adie? So these are relatively split second (or at least measured in a few scant minutes) decisions. You wait an hour (hell, 10 minutes) determining if the signal was a journalist or a combat unit and they've already moved. Again, this gets back to something I put in a previous post: everyone is expecting the military to unrealistically bend over backwards for the journalists. At least the military told reporters up front: "You send up a satellite link, we don't have the time to determine if you're journalist or foe. Proceed at your own risk." War journalism isn't a walk in the park. Its bloody hard and has a lot of risks. I applaud those that do it and do it well, but to sit there and say "hey chaps, I'm going to do things that in the heat of battle are for all intents and purposes indistinguishable from the enemy but I expect you to avoid me at all costs" is retarded. If you think that the satellite link is worth the risk then you take it. At least the military warned you of the risk in the first place. Plastic: documenting the growing irrelevance of the left since 2000.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   46.  Re: How unreasonable...   by Gorvernaut       at Thu 13 Mar 12:28pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     We're not talking about an occasional accidental bombing of a journalist, as you misleadingly characterize it. The proposed rules of engagement amount to indiscriminate bombing. So it's not a matter of forcing pilots to make "split-second" decisions, but about whether targetters make any decisions at all. The law of war demands they do.   Riddle me this, would you try to justify a policy of bombing any building, without regard to whether it was a hospital, museum, or school, because the enemy might be inside? If you would, then you have to admit it's morally acceptable for the enemy to do the same to us. If you wouldn't, then have the courtesy to explain the why a satellite uplink should be treated any differently.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   55.  Re: How unreasonable...   by FatRatBastard       at Thu 13 Mar 1:05pm score of 1   in reply to comment 46     The proposed rules of engagement amount to indiscriminate bombing. Wow... the military says it reserves the right to bomb shit: News at 11. Of course they do. Does that mean they are just going to bomb willy-nilly? No. What they are saying (hence the warning) is that they reserve right to bomb crap and they're going to use that right when they detect communications. Considering school children or museum tour guides aren't in the habit of communicating via satellite telephone, not to mention I doubt that School is going to be in session, nor will the new exhibit on Dinosaurs be opening at the Bagdad Museum of Natural History if something is detected I think its a good assumption that there's something else going on in there. (Hospitals may have an actual use for them, but I also don't expect the military to start bombing the crap out of hospitals either). Again, saying "hey, this is war which means we will do what is necessary" doesn't equal "we're just going to bomb the shit out of everything." Riddle me this, would you try to justify a policy of bombing any building, without regard to whether it was a hospital, museum, or school, because the enemy might be inside? Yes, its war, not chess. If you would, then you have to admit it's morally acceptable for the enemy to do the same to us. If you go to war you assume that the enemy is going to do such things. In this particular case especially. As if Saddam has ever followed the rule of "international law" (and if Saddam has troops in museums, schools and/or hospitals then you've already answered your own question). Plastic: documenting the growing irrelevance of the left since 2000.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   61.  Re: How unreasonable...   by Gorvernaut       at Thu 13 Mar 1:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 55     is that they reserve right to bomb crap and they're going to use that right when they detect communications.   So what? Communications devices are not inherently military in nature, just as not all buildings are barracks. It may be the case that many satellite uplinks are used by the military, but that doesn't mean all of them are. It could well be that in some areas of Iraq, satellite phones are the primary means of telecommunications. The stated policy of the bombing attack is to attack any satellite uplink without regard to whether it's military or civilian. That's indiscriminate bombing and it's just plain immoral -- and illegal.     If you go to war you assume that the enemy is going to do such things [as bomb civilian buildings].   So if someone went to war with us, they could safely assume we would do such things to them. Then they would be morally justified doing the same to us first. Your logic rationalizes the 9/11 attacks.   The law of war isn't just a bunch of silly requirements thought up by silly liberals who had nothing better to do one day. They are the result of centuries of human experience with the suffering of war. The point of the law is to prevent needless destruction during wartime in order to facilitate peacetime reconstruction. If you reject those laws, then you reject civilization. You make yourself as much a moral jackass as bin Laden.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   79.  Re: How unreasonable...   by FatRatBastard       at Thu 13 Mar 2:13pm score of 1   in reply to comment 61     So what? Communications devices are not inherently military in nature Neither are guns. Maybe that Republican Guard is just out hunting. just as not all buildings are barracks. Because, of course, soldiers never go outside of their barraks... It may be the case that many satellite uplinks are used by the military, but that doesn't mean all of them are. But its a damn good indication. It could well be that in some areas of Iraq, satellite phones are the primary means of telecommunications. a) We're talking about Bagdad, not all of Iraq (go re-read the story). b) How many satellite phones are floating around the civilian populous of Bagdad anyway? That would seem kind of foolish for someone like Saddam, who has a tight grip on communications in his country, to allow the average Joe to buy any device that'll let him communicate freely. Plus, hasn't everyone around here been bitching about how poor the average Iraqi is due to our sanctions? How many of them have the cash to blow on a satellite phone? If you think that there are a mass of civilian communications gear floating around Iraq you are either a) dumb as a stump, or b) grasping at straws. The stated policy of the bombing attack is to attack any satellite uplink without regard to whether it's military or civilian. That's right. One of the first rules of combat: knock out their communications. Do you think the Iraqi army's going to pass up communication and say "hey, don't use that, its civilian." That's indiscriminate bombing and it's just plain immoral -- and illegal. No, that's targeted bombing. You're targeting communications equipment. If it was indiscriminate bombing we would just carpet bomb the city flat. That would cause us to lose little to no life and pretty much wipe Bagdad off of the map. Notice that's not what we're doing. We will be putting American lives at risk to try to take the city with as minimal civilian casualties as humanly possible. So if someone went to war with us, they could safely assume we would do such things to them. Then they would be morally justified doing the same to us first. Your logic rationalizes the 9/11 attacks. Bzzz... wrong. Last time I checked that wasn't war. Plus, that was a dileberate targeting of civilians (the idea was to kill a lot of civilians). If Rummy was to say "hey, we're going to bomb the crap out of a, b, c, and d because we like killing Iraqi women and children" then you'd have a case. Facts are the US military does its best to not target civilian targets. Does collateral damage happen? Yes. Terrible, but yes. But look at the history warfare and then ask how many Iraqi civilians did we kill during the last go around? How many of those did we target because we wanted to kill civilians? Schwartzcoff (sp?) has even said more than one time during the last conflict there were situations where we put our soldiers in more risk in order to minimize the risk to enemy civilians. That's the difference. The law of war isn't just a bunch of silly requirements thought up by silly liberals who had nothing better to do one day. They are the result of centuries of human experience with the suffering of war. And name me one country who has stuck to the letter of the law. Just one....... Still waiting.... That's right, because there hasn't been anyone who's fought the "perfectly lawful" war. Wars are messy, nasty, brutal where both mistakes are made and people do bad shit. But look at the history of warfare and look how we have fought. Are we perfect, no, but we are a hell of a lot better at it than anyone else. Take a look at Saddam's history and tell me he's a Noble Prize Winning humanitarian. The point of the law is to prevent needless destruction during wartime in order to facilitate peacetime reconstruction. And there's that magic, undefined word "needless." If you have a brigade of enemy soldiers fighting to the death, holed up in a school I think there's a compelling need to bomb it to sheds. I mean a school can be rebuilt, the lives of your soldiers cannot. If you reject those laws, then you reject civilization. You make yourself as much a moral jackass as bin Laden. Ahhh.. there's that Plastic moral relativism that I love so much. According to you its all or nothing, eh. You either do it perfectly or it wasn't worth doing at all. By that standard the Allies were no better than Hitler the moment the first German civilian was killed (Godwin's law, but apt I believe) Plastic: documenting the growing irrelevance of the left since 2000.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   95.  Re: How unreasonable...   by Gorvernaut       at Thu 13 Mar 3:38pm score of 1   in reply to comment 79     How many satellite phones are floating around the civilian populous [sic] of Bagdad anyway? That would seem kind of foolish for someone like Saddam, who has a tight grip on communications in his country, to allow the average Joe to buy any device that'll let him communicate freely. Plus, hasn't everyone around here been bitching about how poor the average Iraqi is due to our sanctions? How many of them have the cash to blow on a satellite phone?   Perhaps you're some expert on telecommunications in the Middle East. If so, your "insight" into the relative presence of military and civilian satellite phones in Iraq is greatly appreciated. On the other hand, it's reasonable to think that there could well be a large number of satellite phones in civilian hands. Many countries, especially poorer ones, have a relatively large number of satellite phones in civilian hands because those countries lack the extensive infrastructure to support cellular or landline phone systems. Compare that with the Europe and the US, where satellite phones are relatively uncommon. The point is, in an increasingly technological world, advanced communications equipment is not inherently military. So just like you can't bomb just any old building because it has a potential military use, you can't just fire an antiradiation missile at any old satellite phone transmission unless you have some idea what's on the other end.     Ahhh.. there's that Plastic moral relativism that I love so much. According to you its all or nothing, eh. You either do it perfectly or it wasn't worth doing at all. By that standard the Allies were no better than Hitler the moment the first German civilian was killed (Godwin's law, but apt I believe).   Who's supporting moral relativism? You would agree with me that civilian casualties are an unfortunate consequence of war. That's not the problem. The problem is that the suggested policy doesn't even bother to distinguish between civilian and military targets. A civilian death isn't necessarily a violation of the law of war.   On the other hand, if that death came about from a combatant's utter disregard for the potential civilian nature of a target, then it is. You think that's just fine because everyone does it. That's exactly the definition of moral relativism.   Your moral relativism makes it difficult for you to distinguish yourself from the 9/11 terrorists. They acted deliberately. You would act with willful disregard of the consequences. Perhaps you could explain how that might make you less culpable.   You might not think the law of war important. Certainly others who suffer from your particular strain of moral relativism have chosen to ignore it. Consider Nuremburg and My Lai and think again.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   98.  Re: How unreasonable...   by keenduck       at Thu 13 Mar 4:17pm score of 1   in reply to comment 95     Well, you can rent them out in Iraq. $220 a month isn't bad, though I'd be surprised if Iraqi civilians made that much in a month. I guess it's possible that some are legitimate civilian use. You missed a good part ... What? ... She was masturbating ... Where?!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   110.  Re: How unreasonable...   by FatRatBastard       at Thu 13 Mar 6:32pm score of 1   in reply to comment 95     Perhaps you're some expert on telecommunications in the Middle East. If so, your "insight" into the relative presence of military and civilian satellite phones in Iraq is greatly appreciated. Nope, and neither are you, yet... On the other hand, it's reasonable to think that there could well be a large number of satellite phones in civilian hands. Why is that? Perhaps you're some expert on telecommunications in the Middle East. If so, your "insight" into the relative presence of military and civilian satellite phones in Iraq is greatly appreciated. Please excuse me while I gut laugh... So let me get this straight: My statements are completely bunk because I'm not a "middle eastern telecommunications expert", yet we're all supposed to accept yours at face value? Please.... stop... you're killing me... my sides are hurting. We're still grasping, aren't we. Many countries, especially poorer ones, have a relatively large number of satellite phones in civilian hands because those countries lack the extensive infrastructure to support cellular or landline phone systems. Compare that with the Europe and the US, where satellite phones are relatively uncommon. So, how many satellite phones does the civilian population of Baghdad have? Let's see some numbers. You are the expert after all. As for my claim its not that many, I still contend that a) when you live in a country with a tyrant in charge they tend to be very finicky about who has access to information. I find it hard to believe that Saddam went to all the trouble to have a tight grip over television, radio and the internet yet will let Joe Blow citizen have a nice satellite phone that circumvents his centralized control of the aforementioned channels of communication in his country. b) Baghdad is the capital of Iraq and will most likely have the best infrastructure in the entire country. It makes more sense to use a satellite phone when there is no preexisting infrastructure. Which leads to... c) They're damn expensive. Who's the biggest civilian users of satellite phones? Seriously, go ask. I'd bet good money its NGOs or western businessmen doing business out in the boonies. You're average (hell, you're above average) Iraqi is not going to be able to afford that. But hey, I'm no expert as you said. Since you've offered up contrary data I'll assume you are. I gladly await the evidence in your followup The point is, in an increasingly technological world, advanced communications equipment is not inherently military. So just like you can't bomb just any old building because it has a potential military use, you can't just fire an anti radiation missile at any old satellite phone transmission unless you have some idea what's on the other end. But you do know what's on the other end. A satellite phone. Not only that, but one that is transmitting. Again, I ask: What type of person in Baghdad during the invasion be doing a) with a satellite phone and b) using it? I'd wager soldier or journalist. And that's why the military told journalists "use satellite phones at your own risk." Who's supporting moral relativism? You would agree with me that civilian casualties are an unfortunate consequence of war. That's not the problem. The problem is that the suggested policy doesn't even bother to distinguish between civilian and military targets. A civilian death isn't necessarily a violation of the law of war. Which brings up a question I've been meaning to ask: which law of war? I assume you mean this act of the Hague Convention Besides the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially prohibited:-- To destroy or seize the enemy's property, unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. That's pretty vague. So the pissing match is over what you consider "necessities" (a pissing match we've been in now for a couple of posts). From what I gather you feel unless your damn positive (give me a percentage) if you destroy it you've broken that law. Since this Convention was drafted in 1899 it was in effect for WWI and WWII (and a whole bunch of other crap). Considering the Allies bombed factories, railroad lines, telecommunications networks, airfields, docks, roads, etc, etc, not to mention completely flattened Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima without giving them the sort of detailed analysis you're suggesting doesn't that imply damn near everyone in who has taken part in a war in the last 100 years has broken the law of war? That's my point about your particular threshold for "war crimes." Its black or white.... actually, its all black. White is impossible to achieve. I say look at the shades of gray. No, the US Military's hands are perfectly clean, but we do a hell of a lot better than everyone else in trying to adhere to the "law of war." If we didn't, as I s read the entire comment...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   154.  Imagine that...   by Captain Howdy       at Sun 16 Mar 3:20pm score of 1   in reply to comment 110     Considering the Allies bombed factories, railroad lines, telecommunications networks, airfields, docks, roads, etc, etc, not to mention completely flattened Dresden, Nagasaki, and Hiroshima without giving them the sort of detailed analysis you're suggesting doesn't that imply damn near everyone in who has taken part in a war in the last 100 years has broken the law of war? That's my point about your particular threshold for "war crimes." Its black or white.... actually, its all black. White is impossible to achieve. I say look at the shades of gray. in your mind targeting communications that — although some wingnuts thinks hangs off of the belt of every Tom, Dick and Harry in Baghdad — are being used by the enemy military and journalists (and we've warned the journalists ahead of time) = Holocaust. Never thought I'd live to see the day that a conservative lectures a liberal on the value of a more nuanced point of view. Ladies and gentlemen, hell has now officially frozen over. Seriously, though, I have to admit I'm pretty impressed with your arguments. Wish I had some mod points to give your post, because I think it deserves more. Just because a broken clock is always right twice a day doesn't mean it shouldn't be fixed.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: How unreasonable...   by FatRatBastard       at Thu 13 Mar 9:30am score of 1.5 interesting   in reply to comment 1     Well, the military are going to be damned if they do, damned if they don't. Had they not warned journalists that their satellite gear may be mistaken for anti-aircraft radar or such they'd get lambasted after the fact for "intentionally killing innocents who were trying to report the news." Tell them upfront that doing a bad impression of Al Franken on SNL may just get you a sidewinder up the keister is then "intimidation." The attitude here at Plastic seems to be a want the war to be covered (I agree), covered fairly, accurately and aggressively (I agree), but wants the world (or, more to the point the US military) to bend over backwards for that to happen. Its not the military's job to make sure you get the unvarnished truth, its the reporters job. If ABC/CNN/AP/CBS/Fox are only going to buy into the US military's version of the war its their fault, not the military, for being lazy and taking the *easy way out*. War journalism is hard, dangerous work, much like war itself. If you want the truth you go after it regardless of what the US military wants. If it means that you lose your spot on their official "see the war from our perspective" Iraq tour then so be it. Hey, but how much fun is it to blame the journalists and/or their bosses anyway? This is Plastic afterall, so it must be the military's fault. Plastic: documenting the growing irrelevance of the left since 2000.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   103.  Re: How unreasonable...   by freerange       at Thu 13 Mar 4:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 15     Not so. The US military would be very reasonable to demand technical specs (band, encryption keys, etc) for all journalists in Iraq using Sat Phones or any similar broadcasting medium. Dedicating a couple of communcation analysts to monitoring these and verifying that they are journalists/other acceptable transmissions is all that's required, and requires nothing more than an EA-6 pilot checking with base whether a signal is known-good or not. This is very easy, and I'm no genius for thinking of it. Hence the very reasonable conclusion that the military has ulterior motives for it's current policy.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   129.  Re: How unreasonable...   by stevetherobot       at Fri 14 Mar 7:05am score of 1   in reply to comment 103     This is very easy, and I'm no genius for thinking of it. Maybe you are no genius, but perhaps you could give us details on how easy it is to do this. I'm no telecommunications specialist, are you?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   38.  Re: How unreasonable...   by rough ashler       at Thu 13 Mar 11:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     There are plenty of was (sic ways) to get information out of Iraq without using satellites, so I fail to see how this is an issue. Then please, explain these ways. Because others don't seem to see these 'ways' you claim knowledge of. Or, is asking you to back up your claim "unreasonable..."?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   107.  Re: How unreasonable...   by eduardo       at Thu 13 Mar 5:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 38     There are plenty of was (sic ways) to get information out of Iraq without using satellites, so I fail to see how this is an issue. Then please, explain these ways. Because others don't seem to see these 'ways' you claim knowledge of. Have you ever seen any footage, or read about any events, that in your opinion may have preceeded the invention of satelite phone and data transfers? Apparenly there are "ways" after all, no? Reporters shoot their stuff with digital cameras nowdays, upload it to their lap tops, then hook up the sat phone and transfer out the data. If there was a period of days or hours during which such transmissions were not safe, the data would still be there on your hard drive, for you to transmit once you are not in the middle of battle. I totally came up with this, right now. If "others don't seem to see these 'ways' you [the original poster] claim knowledge of", I'd bet those "others" aren't looking all that hard. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   149.  Re: How unreasonable...   by semorel       at Sun 16 Mar 12:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 38     Short wave radio. There is no such thing as a selfless act. We get something out of everything we do!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   121.  Re: How unreasonable...   by rough ashler       at Thu 13 Mar 8:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 107     Have you ever seen any footage, or read about any events, that in your opinion may have preceeded the invention of satelite phone and data transfers? Apparenly there are "ways" after all, no? First point: I was asking rombuu to answer the question. Second point: MayorBob already brought up how timely information is news, and un-timely information is history. An example of 'news' vs 'history' in the last few years would be the killings in Rwanda or the tanks in Israel leveling whole city blocks. After the buildings are flattened or the people are dead, there is no chance to say 'gee, is this a good idea' Part of the idea behind news is to inform and by informing, modify behavior if needed. So, how are you proposing the events captured won't be just part of the historical record? Because your proposal looks like a history perservation project, not 'news'.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   122.  Re: How unreasonable...   by eduardo       at Thu 13 Mar 9:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 121     Have you ever seen any footage, or read about any events, that in your opinion may have preceeded the invention of satelite phone and data transfers? Apparenly there are "ways" after all, no? First point: I was asking rombuu to answer the question. ... and the fact that I answered should only highlight to you that he's not the only one who knows what he's talking about. Second point: MayorBob already brought up how timely information is news, and un-timely information is history. I see what you mean. I guess that means news didn't exist before the invention of sat phones. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   125.  Re: How unreasonable...   by rough ashler       at Thu 13 Mar 10:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 122     First point: I was asking rombuu to answer the question. ... and the fact that I answered You answered the question?? There are plenty of was (sic ways) to get information out of Iraq without using satellites, You didn't list a SINGLE way to get information out of Iraq w/o a satellite. If you are going to make a claim, try not to have it be a bold-face lie, M'kay? It is no wonder you'd like Plastic to have a 'smite the opposition' feature....you can't actually present a logical argument. Better to kill someone who has a message that doesn't agree with your worldview.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  How about...   by cargoculture       at Thu 13 Mar 8:37am score of 2 funny     Renaming "the Free Press" as "the French Press", and then it won't sound so bad if they get bombed? Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Not just potatoes   by jackal       at Thu 13 Mar 8:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 2     Renaming "the Free Press" as "the French Press", It already was the French Press. Congress renamed it "Freedom Press" to try to insult the French.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   62.  Re: Not just potatoes   by shadarr       at Thu 13 Mar 1:26pm score of 1   in reply to comment 4     Way to not get the joke there, Jack.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   143.  Re: Not just potatoes   by jackal       at Fri 14 Mar 1:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 62     Why to not understand that someone can make a joke about a joke there, shad   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   8.  Re: How about...   by sulli       at Thu 13 Mar 9:06am score of 1.5 funny   in reply to comment 2     "the French Press" Don't you think of bombing my coffee maker, you insensitive clod! Tout abus sera puni   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   37.  Re: How about...   by cargoculture       at Thu 13 Mar 11:14am score of 1   in reply to comment 8     That's been redesignated "Drugs Paraphernalia". Expect a knock on your door soon. Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  Well...   by mandigirl       at Thu 13 Mar 8:55am score of 1     You never really know this is true. I'm not at all familiar with Kate Adie, so I'm not going to believe her before I hear someone else say it. This could be a publicity scam. If it is true, then I'm ashamed once again of our dumbass government for allowing this!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: Well...   by cargoculture       at Thu 13 Mar 9:09am score of 1.5 informative   in reply to comment 5     Katie Adie , long standing and extremely well respected BBC journalist. Successful breeder   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   13.  Re: Well...   by tdahnsn       at Thu 13 Mar 9:15am score of 2.5 funny   in reply to comment 10     BBC? Why the hell are we sending perfectly good journalists into harms way? Doesn't Fox News have a bunch of expendables that we can give satellite uplink equipment to? Why? What's the most callous thing you've said today?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   131.  Re: Well...   by stevetherobot       at Fri 14 Mar 7:20am score of 1   in reply to comment 10     So how does a respected journalist come up with a statement as incoherent as this? that is the television signals out of... Baghdad, for example, were detected by any planes...electronic media... mediums of the military above Baghdad...they'd be fired down on. Does that mean that the U.S. military is using mediums to detect televisions signals?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Yeah!   by MAYORBOB       at Thu 13 Mar 9:28am score of 1   in reply to comment 13     Where the Hell is Geraldo when you need him? Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  Is this real?   by J Doe       at Thu 13 Mar 8:59am score of 1     Is this a warning to journalists unwilling to toe the party line, or a prudent measure by the military to cut off an enemy's command and control measures? Or is this even real? Does this well known journalist have a particular point of view about the upcoming war that was not explored in this piece? For many years now the satellite telephone has been the best means of communications for journalists around the world. TV, Photojournalists, radio folks, everybody uses them. This is the first I have ever heard that any military will try to target such communications. The journalists travelling with the army would (hopefully) be immune, but I think this would be bigger news if "they've been warned." Possibly this unnamed source meant that every journalist in a war zone is aware of the general risk of being in a war zone. I'd need more evidence of an intentional targeting of the news than this.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

58.  Re: Is this real?   by Erik Riker-Coleman       at Thu 13 Mar 1:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     This is the first I have ever heard that any military will try to target such communications. I gather you're not familiar with how Dhokar Dudayev is reputed to have met his end, then. Osama bin Laden reportedly is, however. stand up, keep fighting.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   67.  Re: Is this real?   by swalve       at Thu 13 Mar 1:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 6     I think the difference might be that the journalists will be BEHIND ENEMY LINES!!! I mean politics and neo-warfare aside, do they really need to be in a position where they can be fired upon by their own people? That seems quite presumptuous of the journalists in question. "If silence is golden, you couldn't raise a dime!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  I'm confused. We must eliminate the spin!   by n29_w95       at Thu 13 Mar 9:13am score of 2 compelling     I'm so confused by this story that I think I'm gonna need Bill O'Reilly to do a report from Baghdad about it - live-via-satellite - as soon as the bombs start dropping. We need to show these pinko European journalists that our smart bombs don't make mistakes. ---Pie is good!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

16.  I call shenanigans.   by My name is Mudd       at Thu 13 Mar 9:31am score of 1     While Ms. Adie may have left the BBC, you think she might have mentioned a death threat to her fellow reporters. "YearZero Magazine" does not, to be charitable, seem very authoritative. Short then is the time which every man lives, and small is the nook of the Earth wherein he dwells.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

53.  Re: I call shenanigans.   by luna bizarre       at Thu 13 Mar 12:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 16     Year Zero may not be a huge media conglomerate, but when you cross reference their stories on google, many of them come up as legitimate. If you have read any of the links, you would know that Kate Adie was not secretive about the Pentagon's lack of regard for independent media. Reporters in the Middle East know that if you're not in the media "pool" (CNN, CBS, ABC and the NY Times), then as a journalist, you have very little protection once the invasion begins (the "pool" will be bunkering down with US troops). If you want more information, read the links. You can also check out the UK Register. This topic was discussed on the Cherry Warcia thread. bitter_engineer posted a link to this story (like Year Zero, it links to the radio broadcast). On a side note, I apologize for not seeing that post prior to my writeup. Anyway, I had hoped to bring up the question of where one can find decent news sources. I currently check small, independent media portals and then do an internet search to cross reference. Often, my indy news (not indymedia) seems to be legitimate. I just think there has to be an easier way, and if there isn't, then why? ~The sleep of reason produces monsters~   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   78.  Re: I call shenanigans.   by My name is Mudd       at Thu 13 Mar 2:12pm score of 1   in reply to comment 53     I don't want to be mean-spirited, just precise. The link to Year Zero only shows that Adam Porter says that Kate Adie says that some unnamed U.S. military official told her they would "target down" all television uplinks. The "show here" link, which is presumably to the interview itself, is broken. There seems to be a lot of questions here. Is Adam's account of the radio interview accurate? Is Ms. Adie's account of the conversation with the officer accurate? Was it in a press conference, an interview, or a less formal conversation? Was the officer describing an actual policy or expressing his own personal antagonism? In essence, is it true? Also, "when you cross reference their stories on google, many of them come up as legitimate." is not exactly a ringing endorsement. Further, "the Pentagon's lack of regard for independent media" most definitely does not equal deliberate bombing. "Independent Media" may be a great resource for stories which are ignored or under-reported by the mainstream press, but they still have the same concerns of mistakes, misquotes, hoaxes and errors that any press has.* You could argue that, lacking the resources for full-time fact-checkers and such, that such concerns are more paramount. However, if I remember the rules of shenanigans correctly, if I'm wrong you get to kick me in the nuts. (you have to read that last bit in a Cartman voice) * As an example, I would note TNR's double dose of plagiarism and fabrication and Slate's "monkeyfishing" fiasco. Short then is the time which every man lives, and small is the nook of the Earth wherein he dwells.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   89.  Re: I call shenanigans.   by luna bizarre       at Thu 13 Mar 2:59pm score of 1   in reply to comment 78     There are other audio links on bitter_engineer's link as well as the Register link. In terms of the Pentagon official being unnamed, I believe it's their policy during interviews regarding policy (can't find the link to the page on the DOD site). Anyway, read the unedited version of the writeup. My point seems to have been lost here. To be concise, I just want to know where we are supposed to turn for reliable media. You're right, there are a lot of questions here. No doubt indy media sources do have a lot of flaws (that's why I'm not so big on indymedia.org anymore), but they aren't usually tainted by big business or the ruling government. Anyway, I don't see this about right or wrong, it's opinion, which makes for good debate. ~The sleep of reason produces monsters~   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  Why satellite uplinks?   by Nameless Cynic       at Thu 13 Mar 9:47am score of 1     OK, people. Do the math with me. Why would a satellite uplink be a bad thing? Just off the top of my head, I can come up with two reasons. 1. Forward observers - unlike traditional radio, which essentially works line-of-site only, a satellite phone would allow the man in the front to call in real-time updates on the location of a target, allowing artillery to home in with precision. 2. Satellite tracking - (I'm not clear on the technology here, and I'm not even positive whether it's speculative or already in use, but I this is how it was explained to me - remember, I'm just a grunt) Instead of gaining a radar fix on a target from the launcher, the missile uplinks to a pair of satellites and gets the target position from them. It then triangulates for the target position. When a traditional radar locks onto a target, it gives its own position away because of the radar emissions. With the satellite tracking, this is not an option; the missile is on you before you know about it. Now, if all civilians in the area leave their satellite phones at home, then the military won't have to take valuable time tracking the signal back to its source, decoding (if possible), and determining that the missile is about to hit! Welcome to the 21st Century. Remember to buckle up. Sentio aliquos togatos contra me conspirare   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  History on the run?   by Ursa Minor       at Thu 13 Mar 9:53am score of 1     Tan'si, I have heard journalists say on more than one occassion that their job is, 'writing history on the run'. Now their boast will be put to test. My advice to journalists: Shoot and move, shoot and move.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

22.  Nobody "needs" instant feeds from a battlefield.   by MAYORBOB       at Thu 13 Mar 9:56am score of 2 informative     This is a war and not some sort of controlled exercise. A combatant on our side can expect to get shot at by a combatant on the other side, and vice versa. But neither combatants should expect to have to stop in the middle of what might be an extremely hot fire zone to determine if the satellite uplink belongs to a member of the Iraqi high command or a member of the international press. And the suggestion that the transmission should be analyzed to determine if it's in English, doesn't work at all. For one thing, there will probably be reporters from around the globe speaking all sorts of languages (some of them even Arabic). So the language that is spoken is not a determinant if the transmission is a news broadcast or something else. There are certain truths to being in a war zone. Among these truths is that explosives will go off and shards of hot metal will fill the air from time to time. The U.S. did the most it could to try to reduce casualties among the international press by warning them to leave Iraq and to give this sort of warning to those who opt to remain. Tending to final details.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Journalists   by savagesquirrel       at Thu 13 Mar 10:08am score of 1     I hope that some journalist still decide to go over and ship back the daily news of the happenings in Iraq while the war is going on. The problem is that innocent reporters/journalists might die. With no feed coming from the mainland of the war, the public will never hear the other side of the story completely. I think that these reporters would be doing a greater service for the entire world, assuming that their reports are televised internationally. If some do die, I hope that it will make some of the war mongerers change sides. I know that some will say that we warned them in the first place, but even if 5% percent change to the anti-war side. When people really believe in what they are doing, they make some turn their heads. If your asking me if I would go over there and risk my life just to spread the news, NO. But for the ones that are still going to go over there, I have the utmost respect for you. Eh, it's time for an old-fashioned hippie ass-whomping!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

36.  Fox vs. MSNBC vs. CNN   by Web Maxtor       at Thu 13 Mar 11:12am score of 1     How many different real-time views of mushroom clouds, rubble and flames in the distance can you handle? My God! If we start bombing before the American Idol finals, who's really going to care. Simon is so sexy (for a guy and all, you know, cause I ain't gay or nothin') and Paula so witty, who can be bothered? Just give me the stats on afternoon drive radio. Go get'em, men! Bombs away.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

44.  America just sold it's free press...   by burntfriedman       at Thu 13 Mar 12:05pm score of 0.5 incoherent     With the recent florida ruling in favor of fox news, there is no regulation or requirement for the american media to tell the truth to the public, only a loosely used policy of telling the truth. Downplayed in the american media, this story points out that the journalists in line with the troops on the front, will be nothing more than documentors/recorders at their freest level of expression. The real journalism(the two sided, bias free) will be done by those who risk their lives(and uplinks) to broadcast the story...whatever it may be. It reminds me of the scene from "we, three kings" A firefight breaks out in front of the journalists who try to broadcast it and their pleas for help...to no avail(the signal is blocked out). This shouldn't be too suprising since that is how the gulf war 1 went, a silenced media brought the real footage of the war(i.e. not missile hits) months after the war.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

47.  what utter bs   by AFROSEXOLOGIST       at Thu 13 Mar 12:30pm score of 2 astute     banning digital encoded satellite transmissions in a war zone is not censorship. From my understanding, a journalist can still grab a cameraman and mic and report, they just cant transmit live via satellite in a live war zone. if you really expect to get first hand information from the front lines in real-time then you can find an armed forces recruitment center in your hometown. Or, wait a few hours (possibly days - gosh!) for the non-live news. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."-Goldwater   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

54.  Re: what utter bs   by luna bizarre       at Thu 13 Mar 1:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 47     My understanding is that CNN and the like will have live satellite feeds. News agency's hand picked by the government can broadcast, but not the indies. That, my friend, seems like censorship. ~The sleep of reason produces monsters~   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   74.  Re: what utter bs   by swalve       at Thu 13 Mar 1:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     Yes, it is censorship, but not in the bad sense. It's more like "before you broadcast something that could harm our position, we want to check it out first." That doesn't seem bad to me. And I think the way it works is that they have a limited number of journalists (the pool) who can take footage, and then it is put out to whoever wants it. "If silence is golden, you couldn't raise a dime!"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   75.  Re: what utter bs   by AFROSEXOLOGIST       at Thu 13 Mar 2:02pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     how is not allowing live news feeds censorship? they can still report, just not with a live digital signal within a war zone. if the big, evil government was censoring the news they would be confiscating cameras, tapes, notepads and breaking pencils in two. just because CNN gets their word out first doesn't mean everyone else is censored. does it?? "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."-Goldwater   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   82.  Yes, but, but, but....   by rmurf62       at Thu 13 Mar 2:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 54     Anybody who understands TV broadcasting better than I, please correct me on this...aren't TV networks able to buy satellite time on opposing networks' feeds? My understanding was that TV networks purchase satellite uplink time frequently from the opposition. Indy journalists might be able to broadcast in this manner. At any rate, the article is extremely unclear on the technology of all this. YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   80.  Re: what utter bs   by luna bizarre       at Thu 13 Mar 2:14pm score of 1   in reply to comment 75     You have your opinion and I completely respect it. My point is that CNN and the associated "pool" have their news scripts pre-approved by the Pentagon. Granted the military will protect its position by controlling media to some extent. But how much of the live stuff shown will be disinformation? There is no way to know unless the indies can do their jobs. My opinion is that media should not be a tool for military propaganda. ~The sleep of reason produces monsters~   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   86.  Re: what utter bs   by Atlasshrugged00       at Thu 13 Mar 2:39pm score of 1   in reply to comment 80     Have you ever seen a World War II newsreel, try viewing '1941' they feature one prior to the screening of 'Dumbo'. Or maybe 'Macarthur'. In this fight the timeliness of the information isn't going to matter - its the accuracy that will determine whether there is censorship. Let's cite an obvious example, the 'highway of death' to Basra. Those images - as much as any other - defined the last Gulf War...and realistically are the proximate cause of this one. First, its important to realize those pics got out in a timely manner, not timely enough to prevent the destruction but certainly timely enough to cause the war to end South of Baghdad after willy-nilly public opinion stopped George Sr.s march to the Euphrates. SO Gulf War I became the 100 hr war. Was there any censorship...nope. Did the story get out quickly, Yep. [One final point, there were very few actual casualties in that Highway of Death - like most human beings when you watch a few trucks ahead of you blow up you do the natural thing and bail out and head for the wide open desert - most destruction was vehicles alone] And I promise you everyone of those pool reporters who is gunning for a Pulitzer will find a way to get their 'legitimate' story out - regardless of military intervention. So given those facts, why is it unreasonable that our military after providing fair warning to reporters doesn't bomb the shit out of every comsat phone that comes online?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   93.  Re: what utter bs   by luna bizarre       at Thu 13 Mar 3:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 86     I have seen WWII holocaust films, but I don't think I've seen any newsreels. You have a point about the chance for some legitimate stories coming out of this, but who can say how timely they will be. I QL'd this under the heading "CNN will never show you this".(The 1st photo by Kenneth Jarecke is featured on the back of this month's Adbusters with his quote "If I don't photograph this, people like my mom will think war is what they see on TV"). So given those facts, why is it unreasonable that our military after providing fair warning to reporters doesn't bomb the shit out of every comsat phone that comes online? I never said it was unreasonable, nor have I said that the military would deliberately bomb uplinks. All I said was that according to the news reports, the military plans to bomb uplinks, knowing that there may be independent media there. I see where you're coming from, but I just don't have much reason to trust the journalism that comes out of the authorized "pools". ~The sleep of reason produces monsters~   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   97.  Re: Yes, but, but, but....   by AFROSEXOLOGIST       at Thu 13 Mar 4:06pm score of 1   in reply to comment 82     i dont think journalists will have a problem finding satellite time to broadcast their signal. that's not even the issue. the issue is about sending a live signal during the war. if everyone and anyone were allowed to send comunication signals at any time from any place all the enemy has to do is tune into his favorite news network to find out what the U.S troops are up to. I'm no military strategy mastermind or anything, but i would think knocking out your enemies comunications would be pretty important. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."-Goldwater   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   106.  Re: what utter bs   by eduardo       at Thu 13 Mar 5:33pm score of 1   in reply to comment 75     how is not allowing live news feeds censorship? They are not dissalowing live feeds, they are merely advising that it is unsafe to do these things during military action. Here's my reasoning: the US has been bombing Iraqi fiberoptic cable, etc., in order to destroy their command and control communications. It is likely that we will take out their communications early on in the compaign. That allows very few choices for Iraqi troops and HQs to communicate other than using sat phone equipment. Which means that people in Iraq using such phones is something our armed forces will be looking for, and I have a feeling that it's not trivial to determine whether a transmission is news or a launch order, which means that in time-sensitive battlefield conditions, it makes perfect sense to bomb a site, any site, that is seen as radiating communications. It also makes sense to advise journalists of this fact so that they, you know, don't waste our ammunition and their lives, by broadcasting live. If you and 10 of your friends decide to demonstrate on a busy highway, and a USPS truck hits you, it's not because the government is trying to limit your freedom of assembly. J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   113.  Re: what utter bs   by Atlasshrugged00       at Thu 13 Mar 6:56pm score of 1   in reply to comment 93     The linked picture is one of the few fatalities that resulted from the otherwise horrific looking display that was the 'Highway of Death'. No one said war was pretty. I can counter that picture with this one or this one. While Plasticians seem to think American soldiers are all sadistic warmongers ...well GEN MacArthur said it best....This does not mean that you are warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier above all other people prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers: "Only the dead have seen the end of war."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   153.  utter bs   by burntfriedman       at Sun 16 Mar 12:00pm score of 1   in reply to comment 47     From my understanding, a journalist can still grab a cameraman and mic and report, they just cant transmit live via satellite in a live war zone. that's not reporting, that's documenting. Try selling the footage to newspapers as an independant. In the current newsmarket, it's the freshest story that sells. Didn't you wonder why there were no bodies to see during the first gulf war until after it was over?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   156.  Re: utter bs   by AFROSEXOLOGIST       at Mon 17 Mar 8:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 153     Didn't you wonder why there were no bodies to see during the first gulf war until after it was over? No. I wasn't there. I didn't expect to see gun fights and bodies on my TV on day one (or day two, or three). Try selling the footage to newspapers as an independant. In the current newsmarket, it's the freshest story that sells. boo hoo hoo. the US Military forces does not have to guarantee a marketable product to journalist. And when the US Military fails to, that does not mean they are censoring the press. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."-Goldwater   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   159.  Re: utter bs   by burntfriedman       at Mon 17 Mar 11:46am score of 1   in reply to comment 156     news, my friend is the fresh story, not something that happened months, or two weeks ago. I'm sorry but it is censorship. I believe Napoleon said something about suppressing the news until it no longer mattered in order to control the population. This is an example of that.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   160.  Re: utter bs   by AFROSEXOLOGIST       at Mon 17 Mar 11:59am score of 1   in reply to comment 159     i guess every government in the world in every military action before the gulf war censored the press too, because the technology to broadcast live video/audio via satelleties did not exist. if that's your definition of censorship, and feel it is an injustice.. then i'm wasting my time arguing with you. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."-Goldwater   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   161.  stop babbling   by burntfriedman       at Mon 17 Mar 12:21pm score of 1   in reply to comment 160     Do you always put word in other people mouths? Where did i say live? I soke of fresh. If that's your definition of an arguement, you must be schizophrenic! as for live satellite broadcast, yes it did exist. You could always send your video stream by satellite and your audio by phone, stupid.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   162.  Re: stop resorting to name calling   by AFROSEXOLOGIST       at Mon 17 Mar 12:37pm score of 1   in reply to comment 161     Where did i say live? You're right, you didn't say live. I just assumed we were discussing the write-up. You can respond, but I will not waste anymore time with your name calling and trolling . have a good day. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."-Goldwater   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   163.  Trolling!?!!!   by burntfriedman       at Mon 17 Mar 1:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 162     I deeply apologive for the name calling, I do believe that was totally uncalled for and completely unnecessary...about as unnecessary as placing words in my mouth and then making ridiculous claims (no live coverage before gulf war (remember radio?). Suppression of the news is censorship, no matter what the justification is. Recording events, as you suggested, is simply documentation (and ineffective); the news is about the mediation of events to the public while they happened.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   164.  Re: Trolling!?!!!   by AFROSEXOLOGIST       at Mon 17 Mar 1:52pm score of 1   in reply to comment 163     the story, and what I am talking about is live digital video (encoded) in real time, bouncing up to a satellite. i didn't realize i had how to spell it out to you. And there are several legit reasons for discouraging it during a war, while in the battlefield. recording events, as you suggested, is simply documentation (and ineffective); the news is about the mediation of events to the public while they happened. why do they call newspapers, "news" papers? "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."-Goldwater   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   165.  Re: Trolling!?!!!   by burntfriedman       at Mon 17 Mar 2:03pm score of 1   in reply to comment 164     could you please list the "legitamate" reasons? We are talking about video feeds, telephones and televisions. What military purpose did they serve again?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   167.  Re: Trolling!?!!!   by AFROSEXOLOGIST       at Mon 17 Mar 2:15pm score of 1   in reply to comment 165     I would think it is pretty obvious why miltary wouldn't want satellite communications all over the battlefield. I listed a few of my thoughts in this thread. I think we are going in circles here, and will just have to agree to disargree on this one. "A government big enough to give you everything you want is also big enough to take away everything you have."-Goldwater   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   168.  Re: Trolling!?!!!   by burntfriedman       at Mon 17 Mar 2:47pm score of 1   in reply to comment 167     While I respect your disagreement, I still fail to see how watching television, using the telephone or sending a video feed to the states--which are all easily detectable and distinguishable in the communications field (specific bandwidths and frequencies, use of commercial lines, usage of known satellites) would be a military act?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

57.  Honest reporting   by deetle1       at Thu 13 Mar 1:12pm score of 0.5 obnoxious     Come on, let's cut the shit. The issue is not whether or not journalists can send live broadcasts from Baghdad once the bombing starts. There will be plenty of journalists in Baghdad, bombs or no bombs, uplink or no uplink. The issue is whether their video, photos, reports (even if carried out of the country by camels) will show the American "smart" bombs destroying hospitals, homes, schools, etc. When thousands of civilians are slaughtered, will it be reported as "collateral damage" or a"war crime"? Ah, rock on, George, one time for me.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

119.  Re: Honest reporting   by mad_clown       at Thu 13 Mar 8:16pm score of 1   in reply to comment 57     Tell me... how does it benefit the war effort to drop smart bombs on homes, hospitals and schools? Something tells me that we've got much more important things, like airfields, bunkers, and other military installations to drop our smart bombs on before we set about butchering, for the sheer fun of it, as many innocent civilians as possible. Society had become divided into two ideologically hostile camps, and each viewed the other with suspicion. -Thucydides   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

71.  Nothing to worry about   by shadarr       at Thu 13 Mar 1:44pm score of 1.5 funny     If Gulf War I is any indication, the journalists will actually be safer having the bombs aimed at them.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

76.  Hmmmmmmmm......   by rmurf62       at Thu 13 Mar 2:06pm score of 1     Ok, let's review: Reuters has reported that Hussein has been looking for the exact same desert fatigues that the US uses in combat Over There; Based on previous trends, al-Jazeera will be broadcasting any and all footage of dead civilians 24/7, with screaming headlines on the Great War Against Islam; Many armchair pundits have been predicting that if things don't go well, we might be fighting Iraq's army face-to-face in the streets of Baghdad; And now, this generic Pentagon statement making extremely vague threats about bombing any and all satellite signals coming from Baghdad. If all the parties involved are allowed to do what they will, the coverage on this war could get very, very interesting. (Or, the Pentagon could block all communication except theirs, and it'll be about as exciting as hurling finals....until the nukes start going off.) Also...I hate to trash a fellow Irishperson, but this has the faintest tin-foil scent to it...they'll bomb all satellite phone/satellite video signals out of baghdad? Just the "bad" ones? How will they tell? YYYYYYYYYYAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGH!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

77.  Red, red rum   by tlacolotl       at Thu 13 Mar 2:09pm score of 1     As far as I'm concerned, any civilian killed in any manner by military personell can be blamed on the military. It's like that old rule with pedestrians: no matter how it happens, if a car hits a pedestrian, it's the driver's fault, even if the pedestrian falls out of the sky onto the highway in front of them. Just as kind of an extra-safe measure to make sure pedestrians ALWAYS get the right-of-way. Similarly, civilians should ALWAYS have the right-of-way, even at the expense of the soldiers' lives, American or Iraqi. Thus, if I walk in between two sides of a shoot-out and wave my arms around, and someone shoots me, they just murdered a civilian, no questions asked. Off to court-martial. Now, that's kind of a ridiculous scenario, but the policy behind it would be to make sure all soldiers are ultra-wary of civilian deaths, because they're liable for each and every one of them. Thus, despite warnings which may or may not get to reporters on the ground in Iraq, and despite the smugness with which such warnings are being given, I would personally hold the US administration culpable for anyone they killed with the excuse that they were trying to hobble Saddam's communications and, oh, well maybe we thought that reporter was transmitting military information. Well, too bad if they were! You knew there were civilians down there, and you fired anyway! Jerks. Of course, this point of view won't be getting any play this time around. Neither will the one that would charge soldiers with murder (that's right, REDRUM spelled backwards and all that) with the death of each and every civilian that's killed in a war. Not collateral damage; murder. It may keep us from winning a war, but I think moral issues should be given more weight than practical ones. Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

102.  Re: Red, red rum   by keenduck       at Thu 13 Mar 4:30pm score of 1   in reply to comment 77     But with pedestrians walking across the street, jaywalking is a very real and punishable (by fines) crime. If you dash out in the middle of a highway, you're assuming a reasonable amount of risk. You have the right to run out in the middle of the street, but common sense tells you that you could be hit by a car. In this case, the journalists can still broadcast from their satellite phones. They just have to bear the risk of being bombed. You missed a good part ... What? ... She was masturbating ... Where?!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   135.  Re: Red, red rum   by tlacolotl       at Fri 14 Mar 8:06am score of 1   in reply to comment 102     I would argue that any journalists who die in this manner are essentially at fault for their own deaths, and, really, anything that happens to you (up to and including a meteor falling on your head) is, in emperical terms, "your fault". But that's not really the point; the reason I feel the military should be held responsible for civilian deaths (equally in war-time as in peace-time) is to make them more cautious than they would be otherwise. It may not really be their fault if someone walks under one of their bombs, but if they're held responsible anyway, it would certainly result in less civilian deaths. In other words, the policy I would like instituted would not be about a reasonable assignment of blame, but a pragmatic approach to the moral dillemma of "collateral damage". It may be kind of an extreme-pacifist measure, but it's better than the callous view that humans are expendable even if they're stupid and putting themselves in danger; all people are innocent (sez Christ), and there is no valid excuse to kill anyone ever. Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   151.  Re: Red, red rum   by semorel       at Sun 16 Mar 1:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 135     Not even self defense? Hmm, what if someone were about to rape, torture and kill your mom? Would you still say that it is less moral to kill that person than to allow someone else to be raped, tortured and then killed? Uhm, Christ said that we are all sinners, not innocent. I think what you are actually thinking about is the idea that none of us knows everything, therefore none of us is in a position to judge anyone else. All humans are expendable. If this were not the case, death would not exist. The fact is that we are all going to die. None of us is required for this world to exist. we are nothing more (actually, a lot less) than drops of water in the sea of space. There is no such thing as a selfless act. We get something out of everything we do!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   155.  Re: Red, red rum   by tlacolotl       at Mon 17 Mar 8:03am score of 1   in reply to comment 151     Not even self defense? Hmm, what if someone were about to rape, torture and kill your mom? Well, in that case I wouldn't really be concerned with moral issues, but if I were, and I came to the conclusion that it would be immoral to kill or injure the attacker/rapist, I would probably want to do it anyway — whether or not I act on this emotion would depend on the context. For instance, if I had a large rhino gun equipped with high-strength tranquilizer darts, as opposed to a stick with a nail through it that happened to be laying on the ground next to me, well, that would make a difference, dig? The point is not about using force, or even really about violence per se; what really makes me sick of pro-war arguments is the lack of interest in non-lethal ways of forcing people to do what you want. Why don't cops, for instance, wear pistols and tasers — the latter being highly effective in many cases, primarily when the suspect is unarmed and doesn't really need to be shot and/or killed to be stopped. So the big 200 billion dollar question is this: do we use that rhino-gun with the tranquilizers, or do we just pick up the M-60s and let God sort it out when the dust settles? Which is the more intelligent option? Which do you think Bush will choose? Which is going to make better Hollywood fodder? POP QUIZ Scenario: America is a six-foot tall football captain Senior who always (for some reason) walks around with a baseball bat, and Iraq is a snotty fifth-grader with perpetually clenched fists, unafraid to pick a fight with his nemesis. Now, so far, the fifth-grader has only issued threats, though there are rumors that he might buy a baseball bat, too, or pay someone else to attack the footbal captain. Meanwhile, the rest of the school is watching that crazy kid (N. Korea) walk around dressed completely in black, he plays D&D and talks about shooting up the school, but man that fifth-grader is really annoying the football captain, whose friends (who also don't like the fifth-grader) would like him to beat his ass. Is the football captain 'morally justified' to beat ass? Pick up your pencils....now. Do as thou wilt shall be the whole of thy law   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   169.  Re: Red, red rum   by semorel       at Tue 18 Mar 12:34am score of 1   in reply to comment 155     Uhm, you said that "there is no valid excuse to kill anyone ever". I take it by the fact that you changed your argument to one about the morality of attacking Iraq that you either: a) Changed your mind b) Never really believed that statement If you reread my post, I was simply pointing out the flaws in your statements. And to continue in that fine tradition... If you shoot s person with a rhino tranq, they will die. This leads me to believe that the M60 and the rhino-gun are just two methods of accomplishing the same thing. Your scenario has little to do with the reality of what is going on. On top of this, you have attempted to stereotype people that wear black and play D&D as crazy. I understand that you were attempting to equate N. Korea with the "Trenchcoat Mafia". I think that this type of argument holds as much water as a colonder. There is no such thing as a selfless act. We get something out of everything we do!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   150.  Re: Red, red rum   by semorel       at Sun 16 Mar 1:26am score of 1   in reply to comment 77     So all a soldier would have to do to ensure that he would be able to shoot and kill others at will without worry of being shot is to put a few civilians around him. That way if they shoot back, they would be charged with murder. Hmm, that would mean that A person could take 1 innocent person and easily go anywhere without fear of being attacked. That sure would make things easy for the people that don't believe what you believe. There is no such thing as a selfless act. We get something out of everything we do!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

94.  Preserves   by eeksypeeksy       at Thu 13 Mar 3:28pm score of 1     If the signals are so dangerous, why doesn't the US military jam them? In any case, I doubt the air force will be dropping bombs on Wolf Blitzer. It's anti-journalist propaganda.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

139.  Re: Preserves   by J Doe       at Fri 14 Mar 10:37am score of 1   in reply to comment 94     If the signals are so dangerous, why doesn't the US military jam them? I don't think the idea is that they are dangerous, but that the military will want to disrupt all communications and they can't be asked to distinguish between journalists and Iraqi military. That's my interpretation, but I'm still not buying the journalist's take on her background information. It's anti-journalist propaganda. But by whom and for whom? Who benefits from this sort of speculation? The military hasn't issued any public warning to journalists, or businessmen for that matter. I'll wait and see what this pans out to be.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   140.  Re: Preserves   by eeksypeeksy       at Fri 14 Mar 11:02am score of 1   in reply to comment 139     they can't be asked to distinguish between journalists and Iraqi military So jam them all. Shut down communications over the country. I'm not in favor of this, mind you. I want to hear what reporters have to say when they aren't surrounded by American troops. But I am wondering why the US military doesn't do it. The military hasn't issued any public warning to journalists But they sure dropped a big scary hint: broadcast without our supervision and you die. It's propaganda from the US military aimed at journalists who might try to broadcast without the approval of the US military. It's propaganda like those warning leaflets they're dropping on Iraq are propaganda. The information war is waged at home as much as it is abroad.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

104.  NO WAY!?   by eduardo       at Thu 13 Mar 5:20pm score of 1     You mean war isn't safe? And like, they might fire on you if you're sending satelite data from enemy territory? NO WAY!!! J'ai une petite amie avec des tres, tres grandes tetons.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

152.  I'm waiting for the POP.   by semorel       at Sun 16 Mar 2:09am score of 1     This will only stop those that are not really serious. I can think of a number of ways around this little ultimatum. If these news agencies really can not think of any ways to get the info out that they want to get out, they are more than welcome to ask me. I will be happy to sell them some ideas that would make this possible. Honestly though, this sounds like utter bullshit. If it is the truth, I can think of a number of ways that it can be exploited to the detriment of the POTUS. All that really needs to happen for us to "lose" this war is for too many of our soldiers or civilians to die. We do not have to be defeated militarily to "lose". It just has to cost more than the public is willing to accept. There is no such thing as a selfless act. We get something out of everything we do!!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]