Pentagon Threatens To Kill Independent Reporters In Iraq

Gulufuture.com ^ | 10th March, 2003 | Fintan Dunne, Editor

[L,TOWM]

Or at least $.13...

[Ditto]

I have a feeling that their uplink equipment will be nothing but fried microchips after we let go with our EMP technology. These guys will not have a clue as to why they can't get a connection. Then they will notice that their watches stopped, their cell phones and lap tops are dead and their Toyota won't start.

[razorback-bert]

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions

I can only hope this includes the CNN Atlanta site.

[skeeter]

"Well, they know this - they've been warned" is not quite the same as "who cares, they've been warned" is it.

[CatoRenasci]

Sounds reasonable to me: report from the Iraqi side if you want, but understand there'll be no special consideration if you're in the way. Also understand that we intend to deny the enemy use of all electronic spectra, that includes satellite communications. We detect emissions, and we'll close 'em down. If you want us to treat you as reporters, play by our rules on our side.

Simple, direct, correct.

I like it.

[DoughtyOne]

Not that it was an excellent idea, in some cases probably needed, the thinning of wolves used to be accomplished with a $5 bounty per wolf. Take in proof and collect a bounty. My tongue in cheek comment reflected back to that time.

[Jack Stephens]

The above is a skein of completely unsupported claims. A single quote attributed to an unnamed "senior Pentagon officer" is no basis on which to make claims about threats from "the Pentagon."

Let us take this as an example of the quality of reporting that Ms. Adie would offer us from Iraq: thanks, but no thanks.

[CatoRenasci]

I always knew there was a good reason to have a mechanical watch!

[Kay Soze]

I heard Martin Sheen wants to become an independant reporter in Iraq!

[doug from upland]

Stay the hell out of our way. You can report when we liberate the country. Maybe, you will even report on all the poison gas and atrocities.

[DallasDeb]

Aw, too bad! My heart is bleeding for them. /not!

[San Jacinto]

"I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs,"

I can just imagine the decent, on the spot reporting you would get from this broad.--"Prior to the conlict, the Americans apparently stored 20,000 litres of antrax in this Iraqi baby milk factory."

[Centurion2000]

To journalists: Friendly fire is not.

[SauronOfMordor]

Realisticly speaking, if news satellite reports can give Sadaam information about what's happening, and allow Sadaam's representatives to relay orders to field commanders (disguised as "news interviews" ), then the news service has just become part of Iraq's Command and Control network, and becomes a legitimate target.

And any news reporter relaying real-time info about the actions of our troops becomes an enemy spy in time of war, and may be summarily executed.

[DallasDeb]

You think we'll use EMP? I heard we may be testing experimental laser-based weapons--and I'm not talking about targeting.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Excellent. The press is 1. Hostile to the Bush Administration; 2. Hostile to the U.S. military; 3. Supportive of anti-U.S. efforts by France et. al. 4. Supportive of U.N. hegemony...

Need I go on?

[harpseal]

Hey don't forget CBS. Seriously, why should this surprise these presstitutes. If they are with the Iraqis and using a satelite uplink then we may reasonably presume it is part of Iraqi comand and control. That is a totally legitimate target as it could as easily be an artillery spotter or some other aspect of the Iraqi military.

[angkor]

Why are they whining?

Answer: They're not really "journalists."

They're spies with realtime reconaissance equipment, which they'll use to transmit strategic information to the enemy (via CNN).

As "journalists" they should be the brave and objective heroes they claim to be, and step into the fray regardless of any promise (or not) of their safety.

[EternalHope]

Lemme see if I got this right:
1. We're fighting a war. People are dying. We want the ones doin' the dyin' to be them other guys.
2. We warn people not to do things that might make some of our guys die.
3. Someone does those things anyway, even after we warn 'em not to.

I'd call that suicide.

'Course, if they happened to be French, we wouldn't need to warn 'em either. Enemy combatants, ya know. Might apply to CNN too.

[Mr_Magoo]

Hmmmm, They seem to think that sat. uplink, video cameras, sat. phones, etc. will still work after the EMP bombs go off . . .