America and Journalists?

[attilavolciak07]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/...Okgk1c7GhvaA8F

In this article, it says the US military released a cameraman working for AP after being held for three months because they thought he was a security threat.
But they said there was nothing wrong with him.
In April, the U.S. military freed an AP photographer who was among the recipients of a 2005 Pulitzer Prize for spot news photography from Iraq. He had been held for just over two years.

What is with the holding of all these journalists for "security threats" when you release them months or even year later?:hmmm:

[Gauvin]

Well, most of the photos he took he was only a few meters from insurgents, so he was practically imbedded with enemy fighters, but I don't think he was actively helping them, but there's also the possibility that as a journalist he would have sensitive information that he could give the insurgents since he was such an easy target for kidnapping. Many Iraqi journalists were killed in Iraq, over 100.

There's also the possibility that he was withholding the whereabouts of some insurgent leaders, which as a journalist he might not have been willing to give up, since the insurgents wouldn't trust him anymore, and not allow him to photograph therefor putting his journalistic integrity, and his job at risk.

I can only speculate.

But, you're a socialist, your kind has more experience imprisoning journalists.

[attilavolciak07]

But, you're a socialist, your kind has more experience imprisoning journalists.

Typical stereotype.


But for the topic, they released him with no charges or anything, I just think it is wrong to hold someone for that long without even being sure he did anything.

[rusina]

But, you're a socialist, your kind has more experience imprisoning journalists.

He's socialist, not communist.

[Heathen Hammer]

What is with the holding of all these journalists for "security threats" when you release them months or even year later?

I think he took a photo of something that could show american military in a wrong light. And security threat was just an excuse to hold him there or maybe even "pursuade" him not to tell anyone what he saw. After what happened in Abu Ghraib prison, we cannot be sure.

[Erik]

I think he took a photo of something that could show american military in a wrong light.

That's almost certainly it.

Independent journalists have been treated as hostile enemies since day one of the invasion.
American soldiers even actively shot at and killed several independent journalists.

[ivan_the_terrible]

That's almost certainly it.

Independent journalists have been treated as hostile enemies since day one of the invasion.
American soldiers even actively shot at and killed several independent journalists.

States tend to learn fast about just how powerful media can be. US learned from Vietnman, Russia learned from First Chechen War etc.
About 90% if not more of what people see on TV is carefully organised by the military, and the mainstream media is only too happy to accept it. Independent journalists have a tendency to seek alternative points of view, which can cause alot of headache for the military (especially if the mainsteam media later jump on the bandwagon). Not surprisingly, the military isn't very fond of independent journalists. Any country's military.

[attilavolciak07]

That one guy was held for two years, then cleared for doing nothing? That was crazy.

[danzig]

I understand the reason why military is suspect, I mean come on insurgents generally arent ones to have the media around unless its to get their propaganda out or to behead them. That said however you cant just hold them because you THINK they might be a threat, if they actually think someone is then fine charge them but you cannot hold people in limbo.

[Celsius]

Couldn't Agree More.

[Viking Prince]

This is a war zone -- you hold those you suspect are contributing to the war effort for the other side. You release when you are convinced that this will not be so in the future. No trials. No juries. You can speculate and what if all you want -- but he was there and is not now talking. I reasonably will trust the military that he was working with or at least useful for the enemy. Now he is not so useful as the enemy is greatly diminished. Now he is released. End of story unless some facts come out.

[danzig]

This is a war zone -- you hold those you suspect are contributing to the war effort for the other side. You release when you are convinced that this will not be so in the future. No trials. No juries. You can speculate and what if all you want -- but he was there and is not now talking. I reasonably will trust the military that he was working with or at least useful for the enemy. Now he is not so useful as the enemy is greatly diminished. Now he is released. End of story unless some facts come out.

Sorry but that isnt a legitimate reason to hold someone. Deport them from the country if its an issue.

[Viking Prince]

Sorry but that isnt a legitimate reason to hold someone. Deport them from the country if its an issue.

You can disagree, but to ignore the post and disagree? OK, maybe I was not clear enough.

Did I mention "war zone"? You do not deport enemies from a field of battle, you incarcerate during the hostilities. No judges. No juries.

Maybe the military was in error. But maybe they were not. Until more facts are available, I will side with the military. You can make your own choice.

[Maverick]

You do not deport enemies from a field of battle, you incarcerate during the hostilities.

Or you execute them. How many journalists have been killed by insurgents? I believe the number is over 200.

I don't know what side I'm on but I know it's different for the boys in the , I'm sure they are not losing any sleep over it and neither would I in their position.

[Senno]

He was probably suspected of passing info or materials to the enemy.

[Каие]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080823/...Okgk1c7GhvaA8F

In this article, it says the US military released a cameraman working for AP after being held for three months because they thought he was a security threat.
But they said there was nothing wrong with him.
In April, the U.S. military freed an AP photographer who was among the recipients of a 2005 Pulitzer Prize for spot news photography from Iraq. He had been held for just over two years.

What is with the holding of all these journalists for "security threats" when you release them months or even year later?:hmmm:

Police state. when you going to use those guns?

[Gauvin]

Police state. when you going to use those guns?

It didn't happen in America, lol, and it happened during war time, and he was released. Generally, a police state acts like its in war time, even during peace time, and is harsh to its own citizens.

[Каие]

It said US military and I know full well those powers exist in the states and the west in general i.e. Gitmo, and the anti-terror laws in UK and the Patriot act.