"Whatever their true motives, rather than inform Coalition forces of an impending attack these French journalists chose to collaborate with the terrorists. This is a truly shocking example of journalistic bigotry. What we need to know, however, is whether or not it is representative of the media. I’m afraid it is."
"The corrupt CBS pulled a similar stroke when its David Hawkins visited Iraq and met with fully armed terrorists who planned to murder American troops. So why didn’t Hawkins alert the military? Because he doesn’t care if these thugs murder US soldiers. According to this patriot the US shouldn’t be in Iraq anyway. Because of Hawkins refusal to do the moral and patriotic thing a number of US soldiers and Iraqis might now be dead."
Seems to me they are treading on very thin ice here. At which point can we declare that certain media personnel are actively collaborating or aiding the enemy and hence should lose the protection of being the press? Seems to me that in these cases, they should be treated as the enemy and killed.
And Hawkins should be brought up on treason charges and then executed if soldiers were killed due to his involvement with these terrorists.
Terrorists seek publicity but not necessarily their identities exposed. The goal of the reporter is to get the picture or get the story. Sometimes to get the picture they may cozy up to or befriend terrorists. That a reporter would chose getting the picture of soldiers being killed over informing the soldiers of an upcoming attack it's logical to assume that the reporter may tell a terrorist where the soldiers are located or vulnerable. The reporter is void of moral ethics. His or her ethics are what it takes to get the story at seemingly any cost, including death of soldiers that are fighting terrorists.