The Pentagon’s massive new Law of War Manual drew criticism from the New York Times editorial board on Monday for its section on how to treat journalists, which the Times said would “make their work more dangerous, cumbersome and subject to censorship.”
The manual delineates the military’s power to embed journalists with U.S troops, censor their work, and even deem them “unprivileged belligerents” should they be suspected of somehow spying for, or supporting the work of, the enemy. Legally, people deemed “unprivileged belligerents” are no longer considered civilians, and are afforded even fewer protections than actual combatants.
The Committee to Protect Journalists expressed concern that the manual would allow for arbitrary detention of journalists as well as lower the bar on freedom of the press internationally, in a time when a record number of reporters are being murdered and captured abroad. In particular, for reporters who write critically of U.S. efforts, the line between spy or insurgent and journalist might become blurred.
Organizations representing military and foreign correspondents are also raising concerns about the new legal guidelines. The Military Reporters and Editors Association announced this week that it intends to contact the Pentagon to urge them to revise the guidelines.
“To seasoned journalists who have found resistance by the military to embedding and access to troops on the front lines, they aren’t too sure if [the “unprivileged belligerents” label] doesn’t apply to them,” Isaac Cubillos, vice president of the association, told The Intercept.
It’s not the first time military reporters groups, alongside many media outlets, has fought the Pentagon for its treatment of journalists. There’s a long history of tension between military reporters and the Pentagon, whose relationship crumbled during the Vietnam War, leading to decades of battles over press access to war zones and government meddling in coverage.
Just six years ago, Stars and Stripes, an independent Pentagon-funded news outlet, revealed that the Department of Defense had hired a PR firm to vet journalists hoping to travel to Afghanistan and report on the war.
The Rendon Group was hired to assemble profiles of the reporters — ranking the slant of their previous work toward the U.S. military as “positive,” “negative,” or “neutral.” A U.S. military spokesperson, Air Force Capt. Elizabeth Mathias, said at the time that the profiles helped the military “know with whom we’re working,” and prepare for specific interviews, but most media outlets and activist organizations saw it as unprecedented meddling in a free press.
The Pentagon and the Rendon Group insisted that the profiles never led to reporters being blacklisted from working overseas, but several war correspondents contested that narrative, including one Stars and Stripes reporter, Heath Druzin, who said that he was barred from covering a certain unit in Mosul, Iraq, because he “refused to highlight” good news. Jason Motlagh, Time’s former Kabul correspondent, said he was accidentally included on an email containing his own Rendon assessment, which concluded that his stories were 6 percent positive. A day later, he was denied his embed request “without explanation,” he wrote.
Media outlets and activists were also concerned by the Pentagon’s choice of the Rendon Group, which had been accused of tracking foreign reporters, advising foreign governments on how to deal with the media, and pushing pro-U.S. military content for the Bush administration, for tens of millions of dollars.
By September 2009, the Pentagon killed its contract with Rendon, saying the firm’s controversial past and involvement in the embed process was distracting from the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.
Caption: Journalists embedded with the U.S. Military in Kuwait City in 2003.
It just goes to show that the only “freedom” of the press are the good news of government actions deemed OK. I’ve noticed the main media outlets are rarely critical of actual govt. officials. Then if a publication is critical of a war, it now seems to be a very benign type of criticism of a relatively minor infraction. During the Nam war at least we actually got real news, I guess that’s over now because of all the protests at the time. The govt. has only to be seen in a “good light” and the whistle blowers dealt with severely(see Glen’s article or book on some of the outcomes ).
It’s an extremely depressing time for the USA, so many things are going from bad to worse. This article is a very good example: contrast the media landscape during the Viet Nam war in the 60s and 70s to now. Back then, you had far more newspapers, way more journalists with much more access to the front lines. The journalism was far more objective–they still followed the journalistic creed of impartiality and objectivity. Contrast that with today: “embedded” reporters during the Iraq war guaranteed meek scribes who must say what the military commanders demand–or they are kicked out! This is why Wikileaks came into being: because today, the mainstream media is NOT doing its job: the military has systematically blocked out any authentic reporting. And we can see what happened to Assange and Manning who bravely stepped in to report what was being hidden (the terrible ‘Collateral Murder helicopter attack on Baghdad civilians’). The US military actually killed 2 Reuters news reporters in that attack! And, we can see what happened to Assange and Manning for their brave deeds. For the US military, if you’re a news reporter you’re fair game now. America has really, really lost its way. Too bad :-(
17 Aug 2015 @ 1238 hrs, US Central Time, the link for the LoW Manual generates a 404 error.
As of the time stamp above, this link works:
http://www.dod.mil/dodgc/images/law_war_manual15.pdf
I’ve seen no mention yet of what I regard as a classic case that arose during the Falklands War of 1982. The Argentines were hitting British targets with bombs that curiously failed to detonate.
SOMEONE on the British side figured out, or (correctly) speculated that the delay fuzes on the bombs were set so long that the bombs weren’t armed by the time they hit. This information came out in the news in Britain, the Argies picked it up, reset their fuzes to arm sooner, and started scoring hits where previously they hadn’t.
It was quite a case in the UK at the time, but ultimately, no one was prosecuted. But the case to me does point up how the actions of journalists can prejudice the fortunes of one side or another of a military contest.
Hardly an argument to justify what this article rightly describes as the US military blocking journalists from doing their jobs. Unlike the UK, there are far better protections for press freedom in the states.
That argument always pre-supposes that the other side is totally ignorant and incapable of figuring things out themselves. The Argentines would have figured out the fuze problem without help from the British; if there bombs were having no effect, the fuze problem would have been one of the first considered. But it made for a convenient argument against the journalists. Same with whistleblowers, particularly Chelsea Manning. The accusation is that revealing that information hurt our “efforts” in Iraq as it revealed how callous we were. The Iraqis knew that; they had all the anecdotal information of what was going on. Same with Abu Ghraib. The Iraqis knew about that from the their own people’s anecdotes. It was the American people whom the military wanted to keep in the dark so we didn’t know the war crimes being committed and begin to figure out is was our own violence which drives what we call terrorism. If we figured that out, we might begin to demand fewer wars.
Combat journalist played a large role in bringing an end to the Viet Nam war. The nightly new exposed the horrors of war in real time. Sadly, such reporting has been silenced. It has been replaced by embedded reporters, providing heavily censored and propagandized snippets approved by the Pentagon. Out of site, out of mind. The press acted as a counterweight to wartime propaganda. Those days are over. A relic of the past.
This chilling effect has crept into national news as well. Journalist that dare to ask questions regarding high profile events outside the official story line risk their job, reputation and being blackballed in their career. Most journalist with a family, mortgage and life are understandably hesitant to cross the line.
Sadly, independent journalism is under attack at a time in which it is desperately needed, now more than ever in history.
All by design. The Vietnam War Generals returned from the war and began calling for censorship in future wars and military detention of dissidents. The military has been working toward that goal ever since, as the new LOW manuals shows.
With the “positivity scale” on these reporters – they will only allow exaggerated sweet stories about the army, and essentially, propaganda.
Typical of USA. They talk good but the are a fake democracy. Good bless Americans
I’m curious who has the better case: Iran with its espionage charges against Washington Post bureau chief Jason Rezaian ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/un-panel-expresses-grave-concern-over-detention-of-posts-jason-rezaian/2015/08/14/5c06f20c-4293-11e5-9f53-d1e3ddfd0cda_story.html ) , or the U.S. with the charges it is widely said to be contemplating against Julian Assange if and when they get their grubby fingers on him. Of course, since both regimes keep the charges and trials secret, this is no trivial thing for a correspondent to determine.
“Media outlets and activists were also concerned by the Pentagon’s choice of the Rendon Group, which had been accused of tracking foreign reporters, advising foreign governments on how to deal with the media, and pushing pro-U.S. military content for the Bush administration, for tens of millions of dollars.
By September 2009, the Pentagon killed its contract with Rendon, saying the firm’s controversial past and involvement in the embed process was distracting from the U.S. mission in Afghanistan.”
The Rendon Group, http://www.rendon.com is a “perception management” entity, massive, and in fact every news piece out of Iraq, during the second Iraq campaign, was vetted by Rendon, before publication.
See excerpt of their goals –
“Our strategies are game-changing. We have influenced outcomes in our clients’ most critical operations and helped fulfill their vision and capacity with regard to strategic communications”
See more at: http://www.rendon.com/about/#sthash.wMch5xbI.dpuf
They still work for the United States government, covertly through proxies, and other avenues …
All valid points. But, please, don’t limit the discussion to the press-freedom matter, as important as it is. This manual appears to redefine 150 years of customary international law — the “law of war” — to suit current U.S. military notions. The fact that their preface cites everything back to the 1863 Lieber Code suggests its revisionism is going to be thorough. And it’s a DoD-wide manual, so it will probably serve as basic doctrine for service-academy curricula and field-command guidance, a foundational book as much as their “Operations” field manual has been. Torture, detention, treatment of civilians in theaters of war, who gets PW status and who doesn’t, it all seems to be touched on.
Someone at TI with background in IHL or customary law-of-war (military law) needs to comb all 1,176 pages.
.. and to keep this digression on topic, by way of your example:
That’s true, and under customary law of war, traditional law of war, such people caught in a theater of war, and so deemed, can be tried by field tribunals as spies and promptly put before a firing squad. The U.S. Army did plenty of that in WWII, dealing with battlefield spies, and there’s plenty of case law to justify a return to the practice.
So, journalists in-theater should worry, but not just journalists.
“””So, journalists in-theater should worry, but not just journalists.”””
People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”
Germany’s Third Reich was dealt a mortal wound yet the beast survived.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+13
The Beast out of the Sea
13 The dragon[a] stood on the shore of the sea. And I saw a beast coming out of the sea. It had ten horns and seven heads, with ten crowns on its horns, and on each head a blasphemous name. 2 The beast I saw resembled a leopard, but had feet like those of a bear and a mouth like that of a lion. The dragon gave the beast his power and his throne and great authority. 3 One of the heads of the beast seemed to have had a fatal wound, but the fatal wound had been healed. The whole world was filled with wonder and followed the beast. 4 People worshiped the dragon because he had given authority to the beast, and they also worshiped the beast and asked, “Who is like the beast? Who can wage war against it?”
5 The beast was given a mouth to utter proud words and blasphemies and to exercise its authority for forty-two months. 6 It opened its mouth to blaspheme God, and to slander his name and his dwelling place and those who live in heaven. 7 It was given power to wage war against God’s holy people and to conquer them. And it was given authority over every tribe, people, language and nation. 8 All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the Lamb’s book of life, the Lamb who was slain from the creation of the world.[b]
9 Whoever has ears, let them hear.
10
“If anyone is to go into captivity,
into captivity they will go.
If anyone is to be killed[c] with the sword,
with the sword they will be killed.”[d]
This calls for patient endurance and faithfulness on the part of God’s people.
The Beast out of the Earth
11 Then I saw a second beast, coming out of the earth. It had two horns like a lamb, but it spoke like a dragon. 12 It exercised all the authority of the first beast on its behalf, and made the earth and its inhabitants worship the first beast, whose fatal wound had been healed. 13 And it performed great signs, even causing fire to come down from heaven to the earth in full view of the people. 14 Because of the signs it was given power to perform on behalf of the first beast, it deceived the inhabitants of the earth. It ordered them to set up an image in honor of the beast who was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 The second beast was given power to give breath to the image of the first beast, so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed. 16 It also forced all people, great and small, rich and poor, free and slave, to receive a mark on their right hands or on their foreheads, 17 so that they could not buy or sell unless they had the mark, which is the name of the beast or the number of its name.
18 This calls for wisdom. Let the person who has insight calculate the number of the beast, for it is the number of a man.[e] That number is 666
“Kill them all. God will know his own.” Abbot Arnaud Amalric, commanding the Crusader army at the siege of Béziers, during the Albigensian Crusade, 1209, regarding disposition of the city’s populace. Because if it’s your law of war, it’s all justified.
Tony Abbott the PM in Australia has and is waging a war against same sex marriage. He believes God is on his side. He is wrong as many leaders are wrong when they bring religion into to their own personal wars. When someone says God says beware of the detail.
I must thank you for your contributions to the commenting section of the Intercept. As I have stated before you are bright light that shines on the darkest subjects. You have given so much information I am in awe of your knowledge and wisdom. You add detail and precise acumen. I hope the Intercept gives you your own column to write in.
Cheers jimmy. yes that jimmy.
Coram is absolutely right about redefining 150 years of the law of war. As a Guantanamo defense attorney, I have combed the Manual and read virtually all the Military Commissions cases held during the Civil War. They were mostly held under the authority of martial law with journalists and dissidents being charged with an offense called “war treason,” which was any disloyal acts, including mere speech. The USG now claims that these martial law cases are our “domestic common law of war,” which should send a chill down the spine of anyone distrustful of despotic government and suppression of the right to know. in a democracy. I’ve written some on this: http://original.antiwar.com/todd_pierce/2014/04/06/the-dark-side-of-liebers-code-or-cheneyite-jurisprudence/ and also here: https://consortiumnews.com/2013/08/21/making-the-world-the-enemy/
I intend to write more on the new manual, perhaps for The Intercept? It goes exactly to the heart of what The Intercept stands for. For a representation of how far this really goes, see this:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/26/ralph-peters-calls-for-mi_n_207719.html
Indeed, and the case law is easy enough to trace. ex parte Milligan was the main Civil War case, and later on, ex parte Quirin, Application of Yamashita, Johnson v. Eisentrager, Duncan v. Kahanamoku, United States v. Tiede. Milligan and the rest came up during the post-9/11 detention and habeas cases at the Court. There’s also another line of cases headed by U.S. v. Korematsu.
I get the sense that the US could use military commissions, and abridged due process, in war zones — arguably, even if U.S. citizens are involved.
What’s a war zone? According to McCain, Graham, Leiberman, it’s the U.S. territory itself. In WW II, it was held to be the west coast when they removed the Japanese American and Hawaii long after the Japanese present any sort of a threat. In the Hedges v.Obama lawsuit, the DOJ admitted they believed that Sec. 1021 of the 2012 NDAA gave the government authority to suppress speech under the “law of war,” which logically, seeing their objective is to suppress speech and the right to know, could mean military commissions for journalists and dissenters, just as Vietnam War era Generals called for. The remarkable thing here is that no one is paying attention!
That’s the trouble. Under the Global War on Terra, the whole planet is a war zone. It helps if the prisoner is in an area where Federal courts are in session, but not entirely. It helped in the Milligan and Duncan cases (Indiana and Hawaii respectively), but it didn’t help Richard Quirin and his fellow spies. Or Jose Padilla, who wound up in the Charleston brig, or Mrs. Mary E. Surratt and her merry band in Washington. Nor did it help Fred Korematsu or Gordon Hirabayashi, since the Army deemed the U.S. west coast a war zone.
Interesting, though, in re Territo, , 156 F.2d 142 (9th Cir., 1946), a U.S. citizen, captured in Italian uniform, was able to get heard in Federal courts all the way up to the 9th Circuit, but it helped that his PW camp was in California.