Should the killing of Jounalists be considered a "War Crime?"

SGT Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 11:41:10 -0400

"The president and CEO of The Associated Press called on Monday for changes to international laws that would make it a war crime to kill journalists or take them hostage."

They want the same protection the Drs. and Nurses get.

Considering that the enemy, at the moment, doesn't care who you are, do you think that the crime now considered a "War Crime" would make the enemy "think" before they react??

http://www.ap.org/Content/AP-In-The-News/2015/AP-president-Killing-of-journalists-should-be-a-war-crime

AP president: Killing of journalists should be a war crime

Response by MSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 12:06 PM

MSG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:06:53 -0400

I actually agree. They should be put on the protective list

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 22 at 2015 12:21 PM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:21:38 -0400

Since they never kill the douche nozzles, and only the ones willing to stick their necks out, I would agree.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Apr 22 at 2015 12:24 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:24:47 -0400

I guess I kind of thought killing non-combatants of any kind intentionally already was a "war crime." (Quotes because I find the term nonsensical.)

Anyway, I don't think ISIS/ISIL/DAESH is refraining from killing doctors and nurses either, and if they are its not because they're in a protected status, just because they can be useful.

Response by Cpl Jeff N. made Apr 22 at 2015 12:32 PM

Cpl Jeff N. — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:32:11 -0400

Depends on the journalist, if they got the right one it could be a public service :)

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Apr 22 at 2015 12:31 PM

Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 12:31:57 -0400

Giving them additional protections will cause them to take additional chances.

Going into a warzone is inherently dangerous. Sane people don't do that without one hell of a good incentive. Soldiers, Doctors, and Chaplains have that..taking care of people. War Correspondents...however do it for money.

If you want protections, get embedded with a a Force.

I'm all for Freedom of the Press. Fully support it. However, that does not entitle them to this additional protection. How is a member of the Press any more important than any other Civilian casualty? What service are they actually providing?

A Doctor, Nurse, or Chaplain is not doing this for profit. They are doing it for Country. A Reporter works for a PROFIT GENERATING ORGANIZATION, and if they want protection. Hire it.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Apr 22 at 2015 2:01 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:01:38 -0400

It probably already is. Journalists are civilian non-combatants. Intentionally killing civilian non-belligerents is a war crime. I don't think they need additional paper protections, but if the Geneva signatories wanted to add them to the specially protected class, that'd be fine too.

Response by SGT Lawrence Corser made Apr 22 at 2015 2:02 PM

SGT Lawrence Corser — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:02:21 -0400

Good question, Maybe.... I look at it as they are reporting what is going on which some could see as opsec or what ever. I also feel that even if it classified as a war crime who are they going to prosecute? most nations or lack of nations probably wont be captured and tried for this.

Response by SFC Charles S. made Apr 22 at 2015 2:04 PM

SFC Charles S. — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:04:14 -0400

It is a sad thing that this would need to be even considered, but the animals that would do this are capable of anything. Saying that we are going to make a Law or add additional charges that we will consider after the fact that it's done will not prevent them from doing it. Yes, we can kill them twice, but won't change them from doing it. I think this would be a waste of time. NOT against doing it but it won't change anything.

Response by COL Jean (John) F. B. made Apr 22 at 2015 2:17 PM

COL Jean (John) F. B. — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:17:05 -0400

I do not believe that journalists should be given any special status. They are already considered non-combatants and are afforded the same protection as others.

I also do not believe that classifying the killing of a journalist as a war crime would have any impact at all. The barbarians we now deal with on the battlefield simply do not care about the "rules of war" or international law.

Many journalists already have too high an opinion of themselves and already think they deserve special treatment (boy, could I tell you stories). That situation does not need to be perpetuated or made worse by granting them special classification.

Response by SFC Mark Merino made Apr 22 at 2015 2:27 PM

SFC Mark Merino — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:27:03 -0400

Not in a million years. All we need is for 100's of journalists roaming around, taking pictures and feeding our enemies' intel. It's like Saddam and the Gulf War. The best intel they got during the war came from CNN. Doctors and nurses in aid camps risk heir lives for humanity, not ratings. The conspiracy theorist in me says the enemy will have scouts everywhere with al jezeera press credentials.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Apr 22 at 2015 2:34 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:34:06 -0400

That is almost like the UN making war illegal.

Response by Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. made Apr 22 at 2015 2:51 PM

Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 14:51:05 -0400

If the enemy killing me while I was in the military was not a war crime (not that I thought it should be) then someone pursuing fame and notoriety as a reporter who gets killed should not be identified as a "war crime." As for this situation, ISIS/ISIL is either a military or a rouge killers. It is obvious that they do not follow the Geneva Convention and are slaughtering, enslaving and raping civilians. What does a reporter expect if not death when confronting this type situation and the CEO of The Associated Press evidences his lack of understanding of the situation by encouraging any reporters to file stories from the so called front lines. I have other words on what to do with ISIS/ISIL but better left for a different Q&A discussion.

Response by Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. made Apr 22 at 2015 3:01 PM

Maj Bill Smith, Ph.D. — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:01:44 -0400

Considering the question further, if stupidity really reigns in the "lame stream" press as many believe and is often evidenced, then let's encourage a hundreds of the reporters (the ladies to) to go over and try to file from the front lines their variations of reports on ISIS/ISIL. And let's not discriminate as to race, creed, gender, etc. Surely ISIS/ISIL will respect them for their efforts. (Snark)

Response by CSM Michael J. Uhlig made Apr 22 at 2015 3:50 PM

CSM Michael J. Uhlig — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:50:27 -0400

Most of you understand how much I really love embedded media and the slanted stories they "stumble" upon, so with that I make this statement: they have the freedom of speech, but if Gary Pruitt, the president and CEO of The Associated Press, really wants to keep his media teams safe and protected, don't put them in a war zone.

Response by CPL Matthew Yates made Apr 22 at 2015 3:50 PM

CPL Matthew Yates — Wed, 22 Apr 2015 15:50:28 -0400

Having press in a combat zone diverts the attention of soldiers...whether it be protecting them or not...if they want to see what war is like they should enlist...

Makes me think of We Were Soldiers...

[Galloway is on the ground]
Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: "You can't take any pictures from down there, sonny."
[Galloway gets up and is handed a rifle]
Joseph Galloway: "I'm a non-combatant."
Sergeant Major Basil Plumley: "Ain't no such thing today."

Response by GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad made Apr 24 at 2015 3:22 AM

GySgt Wayne A. Ekblad — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 03:22:25 -0400

They don't deserve the same protection that doctors and nurses get --- journalists aren't providing a service in any where near the same sense.

Response by SSG (ret) William Martin made Apr 24 at 2015 3:43 AM

SSG (ret) William Martin — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 03:43:10 -0400

I am not sure but I hear they are getting purple hearts.

Response by 1LT Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 8:06 AM

1LT Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 08:06:04 -0400

I miss watching Christiane working major conflicts before CNN took her off the field to be a pretty desk ornament.

SGT Private RallyPoint Member. Nice idea . . . but it has been open season on journalists, reporters, and their support staff for many years now. Most governments not only do not protect their own local news personnel . . . but actively incarcerate, torture, and kill journalists . . . most particularly journalists who speak against the local regime, warlords, criminals, or businessmen. Personally, I would make it a war crime to disturb or harm any noncombatant or prisoner of war. Regrettably, the AP's suggestion, while appealing to some western democracies, will only be viewed in other settings as an open invitation for assassins and spies to disguise themselves as journalists. To be perfectly frank, war crime or not, if a journalist is not one hundred percent committed to the objectives of their hosts, they make themselves candidates for becoming hostages or worse. This is an increasingly risky profession. Warmest Regards, Sandy

o http://www.spj.org/war.asp

o http://rsf.org/IMG/doc-1353.pdf

o http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/safety/journo_safe_guide.pdf

War Journalism Resources | Society of Professional Journalists | Improving and protecting...

The Society of Professional Journalists is the nation's most broad-based journalism organization, dedicated to encouraging the free practice of journalism and stimulating high standards of ethical behavior.

Response by CMDCM Gene Treants made Apr 24 at 2015 10:42 AM

CMDCM Gene Treants — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:42:36 -0400

Unless you are living in a cave and do not have any access to visual media you have to see cute, blonde "reporters" all over the news bringing us stories from war zones in Muslim countries. Usually these women are wearing tight fitting outfits, slightly reminiscent of a Tomb Raider. Seldom, if ever, do they even have a head cover. Their mission seems to be to provoke response from local warlords, rather then just report news. Of course their bosses want more protection for them.

There are hundreds of other reporters out there doing real stories. No, they do not get special status either. If you are doing a job in a war zone, you take your chances. Doctors and nurses, know that if captured, they still are subject to torture, beheading and ransom demands, yet they provide a real service to people, reporters do not.

Response by SGT Shayne Merritt made Apr 24 at 2015 10:46 AM

SGT Shayne Merritt — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:46:43 -0400

We have our own people that cover combat journalism, if a free lance journalists wants to prove his salt by entering a war zone armed only with a camera.. Thats on him (her) and him(her) alone. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes... We should not have to give them special status or privilege... This is WAR... Not a game... When someone loses, it's forever... On top of that, I am really not to hot on the idea of the media shouting our game plan to the enemy, and troop movement every chance they get.. "They are not watching?" They should outlaw media in a war zone completely... Like I said... We have combat photographers... Let them do their jobs... AFN/Stars and Stripes can report their news to the major media outlets and they can go from there.... I'm done

Response by SSG Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 10:52 AM

SSG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 10:52:27 -0400

Absolutely not. We could do without the majority of journalists in the first place. The last thing we need are more self entitled journalists swarming around the battlefield providing us with another person to protect in an already dangerous situation.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Apr 24 at 2015 11:08 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:08:15 -0400

They are not legal combatants, therefore it is a war crime.

Response by SSgt Marshall Franklin made Apr 24 at 2015 11:11 AM

SSgt Marshall Franklin — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:11:26 -0400

This is a new age and war has changed. We have changed. Our new threat takes no prisoners. They are violating human rights and 100's of international crimes. Killing or Getting killed in a battle is not a crime. It's what happens after they are taken as a pow that killing could turn to a war crime.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 11:58 AM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 11:58:28 -0400

They are tourist.....its that simple.
Sorry to say it that way.

But if you walk into a war zone even with the best of intentions (Nurses, Doctors, Religious Folks) you are making a decision to place yourself in harms way. That being said I hope and pray no harm comes to you but bottom line you are a tourist in a war zone.

No one would feel sorry for me if I went downtown Harlem and got beat up or robbed they be like "what the hell was the white guy doing there he should know better"

Anyway I digress.......I truly feel for these folks and their families but they chose this path and with that choice sometimes comes horrible consequences.

Response by SSgt Todd Ricker made Apr 24 at 2015 12:09 PM

SSgt Todd Ricker — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:09:22 -0400

This is just another check mark POTUS has done to prove that he cares more about his buddy media people than the people who protect the country and each one of us. Never been in combat with reporters, but as I see it, they leak information, they get in the way, and another distraction troops don't need to worry about.
Nurses and Dr's are providing real service to life, not entertainment and political card shuffling.

Response by PO1 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 24 at 2015 12:13 PM

PO1 Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:13:01 -0400

It sounds dangerous. To them, inherently yes, but to the nation as a whole, more so. Who would make this distinction and what would be the criteria? Could this then not be taken as precedence as to who is the press? Freedom of speech is at risk here, if we are willing to make the decision of who is qualified to say what, and what protections they have (and subsequently what rights are not given to non-journalists practicing their freedom of speech). I'm not the best at explaining myself, I apologize. Does this make sense?

Response by CAPT Kevin B. made Apr 24 at 2015 12:15 PM

CAPT Kevin B. — Fri, 24 Apr 2015 12:15:17 -0400

I'm troubled by the journalistic side trying to be special in the same sense of medical staff. If they think a war crime aspect is a shield, it isn't. So what would it do? It becomes the self licking ice cream cone wherein they get to whine about being where they shouldn't be, paying the price, and now the world should somehow treat them differently than the mom and pop storekeeper who are also dead. All innocent lives lost are important. I'm more concerned about the loss of American soldiers associated with having an inappropriate burden of journalistic overhead distracting them from the military mission, and staying alive.

What next? Body cams on soldiers so the leeches can play Monday morning quarterback?

When everybody is special, nobody is special.

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made May 2 at 2015 9:42 PM

MAJ Ken Landgren — Sat, 02 May 2015 21:42:04 -0400

This will give them even more publicity and debate.

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made May 4 at 2015 10:19 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 May 2015 10:19:26 -0400

Not to sound lacking with compassion but good luck with that. Groups like the Islamic State could care less if they are charged with war crimes, hate crimes, human rights violation or anything else for that matter. These guys are trying to re-establish the caliphate and Islamic reign across the region. They don't recognize any law but their own so charging them is moot point. Leave it to a reporter to add their spin, pitch, and agenda.

Response by GySgt Steve Terry made May 4 at 2015 10:41 AM

GySgt Steve Terry — Mon, 04 May 2015 10:41:22 -0400

I think that they knew what the dangers of the job entailed when they too the assignment. They should not receive that status, they are only providing g news, they aren't helping anyone

Response by SGT Vince Albert Dickson made Feb 21 at 2016 8:41 PM

SGT Vince Albert Dickson — Sun, 21 Feb 2016 20:41:28 -0500

Depends on the News Network! (Fox News) Seriously; No! Because they are not Military personnel unless your a military journalist different ballgame! But you should be punishable