Should 'embedded' journalists be allowed to take up arms themselves?

[Erik]

Dutch journalists have quickly grown accustomed to being 'embedded' while reporting on the adventures of the military group operating in the Afghan province Uruzgan. One of them even joined them in shooting at alleged Taliban-fighters and bragged about it. At the same moment a journalist who operated unembedded was being frustrated by the same soldiers.

According to the website of Dutch public tv-news NOS , the Dutch Military Police are investigating reports that an embedded tv-journalist, Dutch documentary-maker Vik Franke, actually participated in shooting at alleged Taliban-fighters in Afghanistan. He did this on October 11 while filming an operation of Dutch military in Uruzgan and bragged about his activity after returning to the military base, calling it his 'tour of duty'. He described the soldiers as "my armed comrades". Franke spent six weeks filming the Dutch commandos.

http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/3526/29/
Don't mind the "conspiracy theorists" website that this comes from.
This story has been running in Dutch mainstream media for several days now, the link was the only English link I could find.

So my dilemma is this:
Should embedded journalists be allowed to take part in active fighting?
Should they perhaps even be given weapons in advance?

On the plus side I think he was acting mainly in self defense.
His group was lured into a Taliban ambush, so they could probably use the extra firepower to defeat/discourage the Taliban.

On the down side journalists aren't very well instructed (compared to the professional soldiers), so they might actually put themselves or their allies in danger rather than reducing the danger.

And if word comes out that embedded journalists take up arms themselves then all embedded journalists will become valid targets.

Any thoughts?

[The Walrus]

http://www.spinwatch.org/content/view/3526/29/
Don't mind the "conspiracy theorists" website that this comes from.
This story has been running in Dutch mainstream media for several days now, the link was the only English link I could find.

So my dilemma is this:
Should embedded journalists be allowed to take part in active fighting?
Should they perhaps even be given weapons in advance?

On the plus side I think he was acting mainly in self defense.
His group was lured into a Taliban ambush, so they could probably use the extra firepower to defeat/discourage the Taliban.

On the down side journalists aren't very well instructed (compared to the professional soldiers), so they might actually put themselves or their allies in danger rather than reducing the danger.

And if word comes out that embedded journalists take up arms themselves then all embedded journalists will become valid targets.

Any thoughts?

They should be given guns for self-defence. which means basic gun training. Not a pistol, but maybe a sub-machine gun.

[Farnan]

Not a sub-machine gun, as nearly no one in the US military uses a sub-machine gun, but either a 9mm pistol if you want them to remain legally non-combatnants, the weapon that translators serving alongside US forces are authorised, or an M-4 Carbine if serving alongside US forces. The M-4 is small enough that it won't intefere with journalist activity, but it is effective enough to use for self-defense. It is also the primary weapon of US Army Infantry, thus the journalist will be harder to identify from a difference.

Next, journalist traveling alongside US forces should be forced to go through a modified Basic training. 6 weeks long this modified Basic will teach the journalists first aid, identification of IEDs, Basic Rifle Marksmanship for self-defense, and survival on the Battlefield. All of those skills will enable journalists to survive in a battlefield situation and prevent them from being a liability to the soldiers they are embedded with.

[Erik]

an M-4 Carbine if serving alongside US forces. The M-4 is small enough that it won't intefere with journalist activity, but it is effective enough to use for self-defense. It is also the primary weapon of US Army Infantry, thus the journalist will be harder to identify from a difference.

Don't you WANT the journalist to be identifiable?
Well, maybe not if he is going to take part in active fighting anyways.

btw: the rifle the Dutch journalist used was a "Diemaco", according to the media.
Not sure what model it was, but it must be either a C7 (which is basically a M16A2) or a C8 (which is the carbine version).
He took it from a Dutch soldier during the heat of battle.
I don't know why the solder allowed him to take it, there were no casualties on the dutch side.

Next, journalist traveling alongside US forces should be forced to go through a modified Basic training.

Yes, if they are going to carry rifles into combat I think this is the least they should do.

But then maybe it's easier to train soldiers how to be journalists rather than train journalists how to be soldiers?

[carl-the-conqueror]

i think they shold be given adequete training (boot camp even?) if they want to follow the milatary, and help when possible, having a moderately simple gun, requiring little training.

[Holger Danske]

No... They aren't soldiers and should not be allowed to have weapons, since they are embedded with a military unit they have enough firepower to protect themselves, as long as they don't do anything stupid to get a "good" story out of it.

[Ulf]

No, That's just asking to get shot at. Like Holger said, they aren't soldiers and shouldn't have weapons. If they want weapons, they should join the army

[Farnan]

We have soldier-journalists http://www.goarmy.com/JobDetail.do?id=14...

And Holger and Ulf, the rules of war have changed. The current enemies of the people journalists embed with ignore the fact that journalists are non-combatanants, thus journalists need to be able to defend themselves. We're not talking about a journalist moving to engage the enemy, but enabling a journalist to fire back if shot at.

So far, in Iraq, 118 journalists have been killed according to Reporters without Borders. 39 journalists have been kidnapped.

[Muizer]

We have soldier-journalists...

In the eyes of the enemy, that is essentially what a journalist who takes up arms will be. How about an American Journalist embedded with the Taliban? Suppose their band gets attacked by US forces, the journalists takes up arms in self defense. If he's lucky and gets captured instead of killed is there anyone here who thinks anything less than a treason trial awaits him?

[Farnan]

In the eyes of the enemy, that is essentially what a journalist who takes up arms will be. How about an American Journalist embedded with the Taliban? Suppose their band gets attacked by US forces, the journalists takes up arms in self defense. If he's lucky and gets captured instead of killed is there anyone here who thinks anything less than a treason trial awaits him?

Umm... I don't think the Taliban allows journalists to be embedded with them in the first place. Also, any journalists that embedds themselves with an enemy element already committed treason in the eye of the law...

Also, the enemy has been kidnapping and assassinating journalists already. They have also kidnapped civilian contractors who are just truck drivers transporting civilian supplies and construction workers.

[Erik]

Also, any journalists that embedds themselves with an enemy element already committed treason in the eye of the law...

Why?
They are just reporting, aren't they?
What does it matter who they embed with?

Also, the enemy has been kidnapping and assassinating journalists already. They have also kidnapped civilian contractors who are just truck drivers transporting civilian supplies and construction workers.

Those are terrorists, not Taliban or other legitimate fighters.

[the Black Prince]

but if the journalist is armed, thats even more excuse for him to be shot at in the first place.

of course, and while i may be wrong here, the only journalist i can think of actually being killed was shot by americans... but thats by the by.

but yeah, journalists are non combatants, and should been unarmed. given their untrained status, their best defence is not to be armed.

[Farnan]

152nd journalist killed in Iraq
BAGHDAD, Oct. 16 (UPI) -- The weekend killing of an Iraqi radio correspondent and producer has brought the number of journalists killed since the 2003 U.S.-led invasion to 152.

Raed Qaies, 29, died Saturday in southern Baghdad, the Iraqi Journalists Syndicate said. He worked for Sawt Al Iraq, or Voice of Iraq, and was a producer of economic news for Somer Radio.

"The unrelenting tide of violence in this undeclared civil war continues to sweep over media," said Aidan White, general-secretary of the International Federation of Journalists. "With the security situation sliding out of control, journalists risk being killed by any number of groups. This makes critical or investigative reporting impossible. Every day brings fresh news of casualties. It constitutes a terrible assault on press freedom and democracy in Iraq."

October has been an especially deadly month in Iraq. Last week, 11 employees of a new independent satellite, Al Shaabiya, were killed by gunmen who broke into their office

tBP the reason you can only remember the one killed by Americans is because, unless its one of the major news networks, the only time a journalist killing makes international news is when it is done by Americans.

[harm]

journalists are too nerdy to have a gun.

[Hansa]

If one journalist has a gun, he legitimizes people shooting at all other journalists. They should not be armed, they should neither employ armed guards. If they want to shoot at people, they should join the army or terrotists. Only protection journalist should have are the military units or terror groups they are embedded with.

[Visna]

They shouldn't be embedded in the first place.
All that aside, no, they should not be armed.

[hellheaven1987]

A handgun for self defence, yes, even that is same as unarm because handgun does not threat the arm terrorists a lot.

In the same time, do you think Taliban fighters would take a look who they shoot before they fire? Even a professional soldiers can't do that everytime. The best way for journalists to be safe is either kick them out the countries or give them some weapons to protect themselves. Besides that, Taliban fighters are not legal military force under UN, why they need to follow UN law not to kill a journalist when they are already outlaws? Even a journalist has been captured, I find no reason why Taliban fighters should not kill him/she besides money.

[Erik]

They shouldn't be embedded in the first place.

I agree.

Or people should at least ignore embedded "journalists" because they are nothing more than propaganda machines who only write what the army tells them to write. (might as well listen to an army spokesman and take his word for the "truth")

Besides that, Taliban fighters are not legal military force under UN

I don't know what "under UN" is supposed to mean, but they are definitely a regular military (ie not terrorists). And so I think they don't want to kill journalists.
I saw the Taliban even has a media spokesperson now.
He gave an interview for the BBC I think, pretty interesting.

[hellheaven1987]

I don't know what "under UN" is supposed to mean, but they are definitely a regular military (ie not terrorists). And so I think they don't want to kill journalists.
I saw the Taliban even has a media spokesperson now.
He gave an interview for the BBC I think, pretty interesting.

Under International Law, soldiers without a uniform or proper indentific symbol is illegal, who is not under the protection of the law; in the other hand, it means Taliban fighters are illegal unless they wear some uniform, which I did not see any.

In fact, "rebel army" and "gurellias" are different in here. gurellias usually have no uniform, which is illegal or simply "terrorists" in term. In the other hand, rebel army usually has uniform or symbol to show people who they are, hence they are legal in theory.

It is a lot of different for these two groups. Under the international law, gurellias can be tortured, rape or even kill by soldiers if they want, but not army, who is under protect by law.

By the way, I think it is better to train journalists some basic weapon skill; unless don't want them create more trouble.

[Erik]

Under International Law, soldiers without a uniform or proper indentific symbol is illegal

In that case embedded Journalists aren't allowed to fight, because they don't wear uniforms.

But I think you are wrong about this law.
The Geneva conventions mentions uniforms, but I don't think there is an international law saying soldiers (rebels, guerrillas etc.) without uniforms are illegal.
Or can you link me this law?

And America recognized the Taliban as the government of Afghanistan. (the UN still recognized the Northern Alliance but that's a technicality)
How can a government army be illegal?