A British tabloid published an article describing a secret British memo which indicated that G. W. Bush was prepared to attack the headquarters of al-Jazeera in Qatar during the siege of Fallujah and that Blair talked him out of it. Administration spokesmen have dismissed the report as absurd. However, people have been charged under the British Official Secrets Act in connection with the leaked memo and Al-Jazeera has called upon the British government to release the memo so that its character can be determined. (See this Jim Lobe Article and Guardian Article).

Al-Jazeera facilities were attacked by U.S. bombs in both Afghanistan and Iraq and journalists and others were killed. Other Arab and non-embedded media personnel have been attacked in both theaters of operation and watchdog groups have accused the American military of deliberately targeting them. (See this FAIR Article). In addition, the left wing Italian reporter, Guiliana Sgrena, and her escort were attacked while on the way to the airport after her release by insurgents. (See BBC Article).

Should the secret British memo be released to the public?

Do you think the pattern of attacks on journalists is suspicious and should they be investigated?

Is a deliberate attack on civilian media personnel also terrorism and is it a war crime?

Edited to add additional link to Guardian article. Here is even another perspective from someone who use to support the war Boris Johnson Commentary.

It is apparent that ADers don't want to explore this issue, at least not over a Thanksgiving holiday. I'm not sure what the memo says, but I think it should be released and that reporters should hound Blair and Bush until it is released. The cavalier attitude that the administration has taken toward the safety of war correspondents is another example of official attempts to control the message by punishing (or worse) the messenger. (See this Article from The Nation for more discussion of the issue.

Ted I like the topic I just was not sure what to say. But here is my gut response to this issue.

Should the secret British memo be released to the public? I am a believer in protecting whistle blowers. Yet I don't think it has been clearly established as a right. There needs to be a better presentation of when it is right to whistleblow on your employer or government. And this right needs to transcend most employee provisions to protect the correctly acting whistleblower from recrimination. There should be a clearer ombudsman function inside the government (or independent of but respected by the gov't) to review someone's whistleblowing material.

The government can hide behind secrecy and that is not always the right way to go. The present American executive branch is far too secretive for my tastes. If our government was plotting to bomb Al Jazeera I think I have the right to know. So personally I like to know when my president is proposing extremely dubious schemes. But others think the right to debate these issues needs greater privacy. Yet when it has gone to the level of international talks that is another issue altogether.

Oddly, I think I would be more clearly in support of this leak had it been an American one. If one of our allies came to us with a hair-brained scheme and we talked them out of it, I think it would be best if we then weren't the cause of that scheme being made public. They sought consultation and were talked out of an action, why does it need to go public. Were I Blair and this information (if it is real) came out, I would be furious at the leak. See, Ted, this is the revolving door this issue puts me in.

Do you think the pattern of attacks on journalists is suspicious and should they be investigated?

I think the freedom of the press is under attack on several levels. The printing agent is much less culpable in this instance in my mind than the leaker. I do not see the national security value of this information. Like the Pentagon Papers, this is an issue that a government would rather not be embarrassed by and I don't think that is sufficient grounds for a classified status.

Is a deliberate attack on civilian media personnel also terrorism and is it a war crime?

Anything seems to fit some definitions of terrorism. Silencing dissent is not healthy in a democracy. If the United States bombed Al Jazeera for publishing critical material of the United States, then yes I think it could be deemed an act of terrorism. I have not seen information that would make Al Jazeera a legitimate military target.

Should the secret British memo be released to the public?
Eeyore, you take this issue to be one of general policy while I am focussed on the specific incident and the previous attacks on media personnel. My question doesn't really relate to the original leaking of the memo (although I regard the Official Secrets Act as one of the worst features of British democracy). What I am really concerned about is whether, now that the story (hearsay, rumor) is out there and the Brits have lended it credibility by their actions, whether it isn't better all around to release the official memo?

Beyond that, I certainly would like to know if GWB seriously considered attacking the most popular and independent news outlet in the Arab world in the capitol of a close ally. If so, it ranks right up there with facilitating torture. However, my desire to know is not part of the question.

It is interesting to note that the leak is already having an impact in Qatar. (See Financial Times Article).

Do you think the pattern of attacks on journalists is suspicious and should they be investigated?

What “pattern of attacks”? Iraq is an unbelievably dangerous area for everyone. IEDs litter the ground. Significantly more soldiers have died due to fratricide than journalists from US fire. Are we targeting our own? Insurgents and terrorists have abducted 22 journalists trying to report on the conflict, which is roughly equal to the number of dead journalists so far in Iraq. Imbedded reporters are not “safe” either, but they have a slightly higher probability of safety. Reporting on the frontlines of any conflict is a inherently risky business. Does anyone here wish to walk around Iraq? Want a relative to work there? Is that because you fear US military personnel targeting you or your loved ones?

Per the “memo” there are numerous tabloidal sources which swear UFO bodies are buried in Hangar X. Yet, no secret documents disputing this fact have come out in the open. Are there UFO cadavers hidden in hangar X? If Qatar were bombed, we would have something to talk about. Honestly, it wouldn’t surprise me if Bush joked about bombing Al Jazeera headquarters, along the same lines that he might joke about bombing Michael Moore’s home (nyuck, nyuck) . I can also imagine wide-eyed Blair gagging at that moment, “Ixnay on the ombingbay okesjay. We’re being recorded ipstickday”. Does that indicate US fighter jets were set to bomb an ally to whom we exported sophisticated anti-aircraft technology just two short years ago? Um, No…..

Edited to add: Thought this might be pertinent:

World economic forum

yes, they certainly did use it in every twisted way imaginable....

Mrs. Pigpen, you have chosen to take this discussion widely afield. However, your example of Eason Jordan's personally costly remarks only serves as an illustration of someone else disturbed by the troubling pattern of media personnel killed by American forces. (For anyone interested in a more objective account of that event see this Washington Post Article). I think this whole incident is a perfect example of the inability of major American media to pose troubling questions without being pilloried as beyond the pale.

In any case, since you are so certain that American forces weren't operating on the understanding that they didn't have to avoid endangering non-embedded reports similarly to the understanding they had about the care of captured Iraqis, wouldn't you welcome the release of the British memo to prove your point? Or are you secretly worried that the worst might be true - as it was with so many other issues?

You are correct in stating that it is dangerous, but the articles cited by TedN5 clearly document a pattern.

Such as...



and.....



There are also seven documented cases where foreign journalists have been killed by U.S. fire, some of them under very dubious circumstances. Claims that the journalists were caught in the crossfire is routinely discounted by eye-witnesses. Given the fact that we were less than honest in admitting the use of white phosphorous, it wouldn't surprise me to find out that some journalists(in particular who work for Al-Jazeera) were fired upon intentionally.



Bush may have very well been joking, I think that does explain a lot of it. At the same time, if the administration has nothing to fear, then why are the British journalists being threatened if they publish these memos? Is it not like the Pentagon papers and they know what is in those papers will damage some of the notions that they have denied? What's wrong with honest and open government? Certainly there is nothing that should be alien about that.

Should the secret British memo be released to the public?

Not sure. Tabloids have a certain level of distrust built in, so I'm doubtful that the story has real legs.

Do you think the pattern of attacks on journalists is suspicious and should they be investigated?

Iraq is a meat grinder. All patterns are chaotic. We have leadership that's okay with torture, so why not taking out journalists? Yep, but it's hard to imagine.

Not impossible. My doubt works to detect the pattern as something like the random shapes of clouds. You might see a pattern if you want to see one.

Is a deliberate attack on civilian media personnel also terrorism and is it a war crime?

I would call it murder and an attempt to make the sword mightier than the pen.

If this turns out to be true, someone skipped out on the Shakespeare lesson. Killing journalists carries a special thing to it, like killing cops. But hey, my doubts have been dashed away before, so why not now?

I don't know. It seems so convenient during a relatively slow news period. People draw inward during the holidays, sappy old movies get viewed, ipods get bought, decorations go up, some of us seek refuge in anti-ho-ho-ho tactics like viewing The Bad Seed or a comedian ripping tradition limb from limb. Emotionally, this is a tough time. What might get our attention?

The Bush administration kills journalists!

Eh, seems like a pathetic attempt at gaining attention to me. If I were an editor, I'd be looking for angels and puffy clouds, saving the conspiracy stories for after New Years. Maybe it's just me, but it feels like folks just want a little break. Can we just get through Christmas without finding out more muck? I got plenty to last a lifetime.

How interesting. How very very interesting. I am not under that impression at all. Non-embedded reporters are taking a risk. Our military cannot protect them, they are far too busy, and it is ridiculous for them to be expected to absolutely avoid them if they are running around taping in an area experiencing direct combat. Insurgents dress like civilians, too. Skitish soldiers shoot their own sometimes and a large camera in a glimpse where inaction could mean death within 5 seconds, might be mistaken for a SAM. That is a far sight different than "targeting journalists", yes? In my world it is.

To echo Mrs. P, a shoulder held video camera can bear an uncanny resemblance to an RPG (Rocket Propelled Grenade). In the scant seconds to identify a threat prior to becoming a pile of DNA, upon seeing a 20-40 ish male in close proximity to direct combat, peering through a viewfinder, one's first thought is not that he is a cameraman.
Journalists who venture into a combat zone know and understand the risks they take, and when placing themselves in an asymmetric battle such as what takes place in Iraq, the risks are multiplied.

Journalists should never be targeted, but it is not and has never been unusual for them to be killed. Bullets don't discriminate.

It should be noted, however, that the body count for media workers is unusually high in this war. Over the 20 year period from 1955 to 1975, the Freedom Forum lists 66 reporters losing their lives. In Iraq, 76 have already been killed.

As for mistaken RPGs, cameramen account for only 20 of those deaths, and that includes still photographers.

The British government's reaction to what might have been only a rumour pretty much confirms that such a memo exists. Of course, Bush apologists will find some new way to create some wiggle room - he was joking, maybe, or misunderstood. And the Bush-is-the-worst-disaster-in-American-history crowd will find some way to connect this memo to a series of lies and war crimes - and rightly so, since they are on the correct side!

I have to go to Seattle I will continue these thoughts on Monday.

That's very true, though I believe this discrepancy can be at least in part attributed to the nature of asymmetric guerrilla style warfare being carried out primarily in urban settings and insurgents primarily using explosive based rather than projectile based weaponry.
Another factor can be this:

Link
I have looked for real numbers but have not found anything more conclusive than the above quote. If true, the sheer increase in numbers of journalists is bound logically to lead to an equal increase in casualties.



Um.....yeah......

Should the secret British memo be released to the public?

Certainly. If the practice of killing journalists is present in Iraq then the world should know about it. If not, this memo should clear the issue.

Do you think the pattern of attacks on journalists is suspicious and should they be investigated?

As I said, if killing journalists is a common practice by US and UK troops, we have a severe case in our hands. Therefore for the sake of free press and freedom of information, we should investigate such claims very thoughly.

Is a deliberate attack on civilian media personnel also terrorism and is it a war crime?

Of course! Terrosim isn't just bombing buildings into flames. Any act to killing innocent civilians for your ideology is terrorism. This includes, but not limited to (I like legal terms) 9/11, Air Raids on Bagdat, The Siege of Fallujah, Attacks on Bristish Subway....

76 have been killed by whom? Of that number, I believe the figure is something like 12 (I'll try to find it) by US forces. 12 in a combat zone with the type of insurgency that has been going on in Iraq over a period of 2 years isn't exactly high. It is rather an impossibly low number if we are to believe journalists are being targeted purposely in a "suspicious pattern of attacks", which is the premise of the debate questions.

Edited to add:Link

As of May, 85 dead journalists and media staff, of which 14 deaths (16 percent) were caused by US forces. By juxtaposition, hundreds of soldiers have died due to fratricide (if the figures for friendly fire today mirror roughly the ones of the past). Are we targeting our own soldiers?

Edited again, upon further thought, to add:
It doesn't take a Bush apologist to conclude that he was obviously joking here. No wiggling necessary. I admit Bush is an idiot, and I can very easily see him saying something flippant without thinking. We signed a ten year military agreement with Qatar in 2001, and hauled all sorts of military equipment and thousands of troops over there. It has largely replaced Saudi Arabia as our staging ground. UFO bodies in hangar X are much more likely than us bombing Qatar.

Here are a couple of websites that give some statistics on reporter and media deaths in Iraq and of those killed by coalition forces. (For the most official and up to date first see UN Investigation Requested).



Or you may prefer this older excerpt from Dave Lindorf's book Slaughter by the Book.

If you read the links that TedN5 cited, you will find the pattern and history of each attack. Not only that, but civilian eye-witnesses do not corroborate what the military says happened on the ground.

Those are interesting links Ted, but until or unless somebody comes forward and states with proof that US Forces deliberately killed, or more conspiratorially, were ordered to kill journalists, then the plausible explanation is that said journalists either co-located themselves near insurgents and as such, suffered collateral damage associated with warfare, or stepped in front of high velocity lead.

I hate to sound crass, but given the magnitude of violence and indiscriminate killing by insurgents in Iraq, it's a wonder that more than 76 haven't been killed. We can all assume with a degree of certainty that for a journalist to get that pulitzer prize winning shot or story, they have to place themselves where the action is thick. Couching the situation with terms of slaughter, unexplained and intolerable simply inflames the debate over a quite explainable situation.


Sorry, but those links give exactly zero context in reference to what was happening on the ground during those incidents. No pattern at all. Iraqi eyewitnesses of unknown character and loyalty don't corroborate the military....oh my, there's the smoking gun......

If one wishes to be objective at all about this then all of the facts have to come into play. Like when Col. Dave Perkins went as far as getting on FOX News's Greg Kelley's satellite phone to speak with a FNC producer in NYC who had stayed in the Palestine Hotel. Or when he had AP reporter Chris Tomlinson contact the AP offices in Doha, Qatar to verify the information of what the hotel looked like, since it was across the river from the Spartan Brigade of the 3rd Infantry Division. That unit had been taking murderous mortar fire from somewhere across the Jumhuriya Bridge, and they knew that a forward observer was concealed in a building across the river.
Staff Sergeant Gibson and Lieutenant Middleton spotted a man in an overwatch position with binoculars and something on a tripod that resembled a Ground Laser Locator Designator (GLLD). The intel section had also been monitoring Iraqi transmissions broadcast in the clear over a Motorola net. When permission was given to fire on the target, the chatter went ballistic, leading them to believe that they indeed had the correct target.
Earlier in the day the reporters in the Palestine had hung white sheets from the balconies of the hotel on advice from Chris Tomlinson through his bureau in Doha, but Iraqi soldiers had made them take them down. Where is the pattern of deliberate or willful killing of journalists? All I'm seeing is what happens in war, and given the type of enemy and tactics we face, unfortunately you can expect more to die.

Again, sounding crass I'm sure, but when in a combat zone with no defined lines of battle, if you point something that looks like a weapon, or act in a manner that could indicate you are the enemy, you assume a greater risk.

I'd have to respectfully disagree. There is plenty of context to go on in regards to these incidences. Here are just a few...

-In regards to a tank shelling a hotel where journalists were staying, which resulted in the deaths of three reporters.



I agree that Iraqi civilians may not be the most loyal witnesses in a skirmish, but I think reporters and audiotape from a media outlet located in an allied country qualifies as a more credible source.

Not only that, but the FAIR document cited by TedN5 also tells of Al-Jazeera reporters being fired on in a clearly marked car. I have a hard time believing that it would be merely coincidental that their reporters would be fired on in cars, that their reporting bureaus would be shelled, and that the president did not state that should we bomb their main offices in an allied country. If it isn't a pattern, then how could all of this be purely coincidental?

Should the secret British memo be released to the public?

I agree with former Labour Defence Minister Peter Kilfoyle, that the memo should be released to the public.


I have a hard time accepting the fact Bush made a joke. (and if he did he has some sick and twisted humor) It has been proven that Bush and his henchmen are not frightened by international law, human rights or the U.N., and are willing to do anything they see fit in order to fulfill their goals.

But at the other hand I do not automatically believe that U.S. forces are instructed to kill foreign journalists. (although, these same troops are (instructed?) torturing prisoners and violating international laws and human rights).

I think the high amount of journalists killed can be for a large part explained by looking at two aspects.

First: Internet, television and other mass media have flourished in the last years. Competition with other news competitors (in order to bring the latest facts and stories) have increased the presence of reporters in the Iraq. When there are many embedded and non-embedded journalists running around in Iraq, the chances that some get killed will increase. (it would be interesting to see how many reporters are now present in Iraq, compared for instance with the war in Vietnam, the first Gulfwar etc.)

Second: Stressed and scared U.S. troops with happy trigger fingers and big guns. The U.S. soldiers are extremely cautious. They went to Iraq to 'liberate' the Iraqi people, they thought they fought a just war, but instead they have been attacked from all sides, with all kinds of tactics and weapons. It wouldn't be a surprise if the average soldier deeply distrusts or even hates the majority of the Iraqi people. They cannot trust anybody anymore, good friends have died, comrades have been severly wounded.

They have low patience and will shoot at anything or anything if it acts suspiciously. That they run the risk of shooting an innocent person (even a journalist), is something they (and in lesser degree we) have to accept.

Do you think the pattern of attacks on journalists is suspicious and should they be investigated?

Its always good to investigate suspicious attacks, especially when completely innocent people (journalists, children etc) are being the victims. Although in some cases the act is understandable (soldiers suspecting a car or a person to behave rather strange, not taking chances and just eliminating the possible threat), if these killings occur on a large scale then something has to change.

Is a deliberate attack on civilian media personnel also terrorism and is it a war crime?

Depends. If there are guidelines that orders soldiers to attack the civilian media than we should be worried a lot. If this is the case then the killings are indeed a horrible war crime.

If not, then the U.S. should at least make sure that the number of journalists killed by U.S. troops, should drop no matter how.

I'll tell you, this thread truly has me beating my head against a wall. For those who think we contemplate bombing Qatar, do you think we contemplate bombing France? Australia? New Zealand? Our press there is pretty bad, too....and they are far less valuable to us strategically right now.



Two television cameramen, standing on the outside who looked like spotters, were killed (another journalist was killed across the river, same related incident). Surely you don't believe that building would still be standing if the target were journalists and this is some "pattern" for the attack of them. They could have really scored big! There were, what, dozens....maybe even over a hundred in that one building? Reality check. 14 journalists accidentally killed during an almost three year duration in the middle of a combat zone is not a large number. The particular incident we are discussing happened almost three years ago, during major combat operations. It is unfortunate, as is the much much higher number of dead friendly fire incidences for our soldiers. 85 dead journalists is a large number, but our forces haven't done that. Yes, there sure is a pattern, but you're pointing to the wrong culprit.



Edited to add: I found a short timeline for coalition-related media worker deaths for years 2003 through May of 2004 (I will omit the three incidences above here). This is when the brunt of coalition induced media fatalities happened.

April 4, 2003-- Washington Post editorial columnist Michael Kelly is killed when the vehicle in which he is travelling with US troops plunges into a canal while evading Iraqi fire on the approach to Baghdad's main airport.

April 19, 2004-- Journalist Assad Kadhem and his driver Hussein Saleh, both working for the coalition-funded Iraqi television channel, are killed by US military fire.

April 6, 2003 -- US NBC television journalist David Bloom, 39, "embedded" with US troops in Iraq dies near Baghdad, apparently of natural causes.

-- Kamaran Abdurazaq Muhamed, a 25-year-old Kurdish translator working with the BBC, dies after a US plane bombs a Kurdish-US convoy in northern Iraq in a "friendly-fire" attack.

March 18, 2004 --Cameraman al-Luhaybi dies during clashes in Fallujah.

March 26, 2004 --Cameraman Aziz and journalist with him die during clashes in central Baghdad.

August 17, 2004 --Cameraman killed near the Abu Ghraib prison by US troops who apparently mistook his camera for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher.

Of the above incidences (twelve total, counting the three at and near the hotel), five of those media people (that's nearly half) were working for us. The others were very explainable events which happened during clashes and combat operations (involving, unsurprisingly, pointed cameras likely mistaken for a weapon), with the exception of the cameraman who was mistaken for an insurgent on August 17. This is a pattern of premeditated attack?

(edited to change number after recount)

I think you may have done what the media and skeptics have done, overlook the facts. The mortar fire wasn't originating from the Palestine Hotel or it's immediate vicinity. Most mortars have a range upwards of 3 km. What was known, was that there was a spotter calling in coordinates and targets to the mortar crew. That's why the journalists didn't hear noise from around there hotel. Somebody sitting in a hotel is not going to hear a thump of a mortar firing more than a couple of blocks away. But they certainly should have been hearing and seeing the effects of the fire on US troops across the river, though they appear to leave that out of their statement. The idea that a tank crew would spontaneously traverse and fire on a building for no apparent reason flies in the face of logic, as does the idea that an order was given to take out journalists.
Does anyone really think that a journalist, who is not aware of a nearby spotter, who doesn't know where the mortar fire is coming from, and just sees two of his colleagues killed, is going to lend any benefit of the doubt to the Army? Of course they think the killing was at best a cruel mistake, or at worst deliberate. But their narrow field of view of the event is not enough to cast guilty verdicts on the intentions of the soldiers in question.

I'm not seeing a pattern even without dissecting the facts. The efforts of the Brigade Commander, Col. Perkins, to positively identify the Palestine Hotel show the opposite. Even though our intelligence should have briefed the hotel prior the Spartan Brigade's 'Thunder Run' into Baghdad, Perkins efforts have raised the bar in our attempts to mitigate civilian casualties. Why didn't the operations order mention the existence and description of the hotel? Across the river from the Brigade was the Marines sector, who had been held up attempting to take two bridges on the eastern approach to the city.

Have we or would we bat an eyelash at the deaths of correspondents who placed themselves in Stalingrad, Berlin, Aachen, Tripoli, Messina or any number of besieged cities during times of war? Every journalist in Baghdad knew the city would be attacked, and knew that urban warfare is asymmetric and deadly. It's hard to dredge up any sympathy for this incident when they appear to think they should be shielded from all danger.
What is even more intriguing is that the overwhelming number of journalists have been killed by 'insurgents' yet I see the casual attitude amongst some that those deaths were just an unfortunate aspect of war. While the minority of killings by US troops somehow constitute a pattern or some nefarious plot to defecate all over our own public relations image.

1.) If there is a secret British memo.

2.) All things suspicious should be investigated regardless of who or what is threatened in any manner.

3.) No. Terrorism doesn't really qualify when it comes down to a personal scale-- that's called harassment. For terrorism to occur it must be intended to wipe out a certain thing or system, journalists serve a country in which would be a terrorist target, they themselves are not so high and mighty. Granted, I do not advocate the destruction of anything media/journalism related, but I do not believe that silencing a propaganda factory in a hostile country serving hostile purposes is "terrorism."

nebraska29 then provides 2 examples both of which appear suspicious but neither of which provide first or second hand sources of the allegations.

I did read the link for "7 documented cases" as well which is from the International Federation of Journalists. I found information on what appeared to be 13 different incidents. The page lists them by year and states that there were 7 cases in 2003, 6 in 2004, and 5 in 2005. (They count each person as a separate case even though some incidents involved more than one person) so I am not sure why it is labeled with the number 7. The page also is done by the International Federation of Journalists. I could find no indications on this page that some of the claims regarding the cross-fire incidents were "routinely discounted by eye-witnesses" as Nebraska29 indicated. It would help if you could provide some links for more information about that as I would assume the IFJ would include it in there if credible as they seem to be trying to report the issue fairly, and do seem to attack the "official" report in some cases.

In the case of the hotel that the tank fired on it would appear that you are arguing that the military claims it was provoked by the tank taking fire but that this is not supported by "credible journalists". The link that you posted from the International Federation of Journalists makes no mention of that explanation and refers instead to the explanation that the tank was firing on the hotel as it felt there was a forward observation post. From the looks of it the IFJ then goes on to criticize the investigation, not because it came to that conclusion but because it didn't investigate why the higher ups didn't tell the armor company who was in the hotel.

I find the IFJ's page much more believable than the others sited as most of the links that TedN5 provided are obviously biased towards anti-Bush crowd. This isn't to say that they can't have truth in them and not all the links are that way, but I just have a hard time accepting ANYTHING they would say without corroborating proof just because they are so obviously biased. Granted, I would have just a hard of time believing anything the pro-Bush biased crowd would say either without outside proof.

(Side note, part of the problem with journalism today is that there is so little of it. Biased reporting is not journalism but is simply an opinion column hiding behind "facts" pretending to be journalism)

I have heard reference in this thread to journalist in relation to the Geneva Conventions. Not knowing what they were I checked out http://www.genevaconventions.org/ and found nothing to indicate that journalists were supposed to get any special rights in regards to the military. They have the same rights as civilians but the military doesn't have to give them any special protections just because they want to be out with the military getting the scoop on "those dastards at the BBC!" It seems to me its more along the lines of "If you want to go out and watch the fighting we'll try not to shoot you, just don't get in the way, don't look suspicious, don't get behind someone we're shooting at, don't stand in the way of an errant shot/bomb/etc. Oh, don't forget to get life insurance."

Granted, I read what appears to have been the Cliff Notes version of the GC but it did link to the specific articles it was summarizing.

That having been said I can't say that there isn't a pattern of attacks on Al-Jazeera although I have a hard time seeing any pattern in regards to non-imbedded journalists as a whole. All of the reports in the IFJ list seemed to me to be able to be explained other than by a "Bush & Co. Conspiracy™" Nor does the secret British memo seem to be the smoking gun pointing to anything other than a possible anti-Al-Jazeera conspiracy. Possibly. Maybe. In a kind of sort of tip of the iceberg, neighborhood gossip sort of way. It is possible that it could be more than that but it is also possible that it could be a harmless conversation between friends who also happen to be very powerful/important allies.

Now on to the questions.

Should the secret British memo be released to the public?

Absolutely Positively Not!
At this time
without further review anyway...

My problem with the press is that every time there is a whiff of scandal around the government they come in screaming about how the public has a right to know about everything regarding this case because it is the publics right to know what goes on behind closed doors as the government is for the people and they had better let us know as we are doing this for the public good. (gasp gasp gasp)

For the most part what they really mean is "we sense a juicy story that will sell newspapers and we could care less about the public interest except as measured by the Nelson Ratings."

I don't think the public has a right to know everything. There are legitiment reasons why the government should keep things secret. In this case I could see that the Blaire government is saying "This was a conversation between two old friend blowing off a little steam and joking among themselves with the implied understanding that it was private. There is no public need to know and releasing the memo would simply embarrass a valued ally for absolutely no reason other than to sell newspapers" Of course they can not say it that way and so they invoke the Official Secrets Act or what ever the heck it is called.

The only problem with this is that while it could be as innocent as that it might not be and so you really can't take their word for it because, well, how do you know for sure?

However if the memo has nothing to do with a scandal or wrong doing but is simply a memo with sensative information the only way that that can be proved is to show it other wise you just have to take their word for it. Kind of a catch-22.

"We have a memo about a legitimate secret that the public should not know about. They found out about it and think it contains evidence of wrong doing (which it doesn't) and demand to see it. We say no because it is secret and should stay that way. They say prove it. We show them. They say 'Oops the cat is out of the bag, you're right you shouldn't have shown it to us.' Now what do we do?"

There needs to be a review process by a non partisan panel set up specifically for this type of issue. Someone the public can trust to read the memo and say "Yup you guys have no need to see this or there is a good reason to keep it secret" or "Well Mr. Government this is no reason not to show this to the public or the public has a need to know this information"

Then jump all over anyone violating their ruling. Whistleblowers are necessary in some cases and criminals in others. They shouldn't have to take their story public risking the latter when they think they may be the former.

Do you think the pattern of attacks on journalists is suspicious and should they be investigated?

As stated earlier, nope. In most of the cases listed I can easily come up with legitimate reasons from accidents to incompetence. There may be a case against them for the Al-Jazeera issue but I don't see any wider anti-journalist conspiracy based on what has been discussed so far.

Is a deliberate attack on civilian media personnel also terrorism and is it a war crime?
Well it depends. As stated in the GC Journalists are considered civilians and are to be treated as such. However where do you draw the line? Are they providing support to the enemy via intelligence or broadcasting of sensitive information? Yes the public has the right to know but not when it has the chance of harming your personnel in the short term. It is one thing to suppress damaging information simply because it is embarrassing and quite another to suppress it as it places your forces in immediate harm.

In the case of Falujah, I think it could be argued that, as Al-Jazeera's broadcasts were placing the soldiers fighting in area in harms way due to the propaganda aspects, they were aiding and abetting the enemy and as such had no protection in the GC's as civilians. I don't say that that should be the case but it seems that it could be a valid argument. Maybe.

I also see nothing in the Geneva Conventions that says you have to treat journalist broadcast facilities or equipment as civilian equipment. Just the same ways as you are allowed, with some restrictions, to detain civilians who may have sensitive information from giving it to the enemy, you should have the ability to stop journalists from broadcasting sensitive information as well. That would involve not worrying about Geraldo when he is saying "It is hot here in Iraq" and shooting him if he refuses to stop his live broadcast of your command centers map of all your troops locations if you can't get him to stop any other way.

Speaking from Central Command in Doha, Brig. Gen. Vincent Brooks related that the hotel was fired upon due to attacks on our troops from within the hotel.


From this direct quote, the CenCom leaders looked for a better explanation.



That also corresponds with the tank unit's commander:



CentComm's explanation doesn't pass muster. I believe the words of journalists over an institution which isn't always known for its open nature in admitting anything-from agent Orange, My Lai, to the use of white phosphorous.

You realize of course, that these statements were issued on the same day as the incident!
Now, shame on CENTCOM for speaking without knowing the facts, but the media wouldn't exactly sit peacefully waiting for the after action reports and debriefings from those at the scene, would they? The account that I posted above is what happened at the Jumhuriya Bridge in April 2003. If quoting only the same day media brief helps your case, more power to you......but that's not really telling the story two years later is it?

Again I ask, where is the pattern of deliberately firing on journalists?