Pentagon Spokesmen Say Soldiers Justified In Barring Reporter From Attack Scene

Associated Press ^ | February 11,2002 | Matt Kelley

[Lady In Blue]

Feb 11, 2002

Pentagon Spokesmen Say Soldiers Justified in Barring Reporter From Attack Scene

By Matt Kelley
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - The Pentagon said Monday that U.S. soldiers were justified in keeping a newspaper reporter away from the scene of a deadly U.S. missile strike in Afghanistan.

The officials said they didn't know if soldiers had threatened to shoot Washington Post reporter Doug Struck, as the Post reported.

"We don't know the circumstances of what happened on the spot," Defense Department spokeswoman Victoria Clarke said at a news briefing.

The newspaper reported Monday that U.S. soldiers held Struck at gunpoint on Sunday. Struck wrote that the troops' unidentified leader said the reporter "would be shot" if he went any farther toward the missile strike site.

Philip Bennett, the Post's assistant managing editor for foreign news, said the incident "was baffling to us."

"We have questions about exactly ... on what basis the military in Afghanistan prevents American reporters from reporting on aspects of military operations in Afghanistan," Bennett said.

The reporter and the soldiers were investigating an attack last week by a missile fired from a remote-controlled CIA spy plane. The attack in the mountains of eastern Afghanistan killed several people who U.S. officials believed were al-Qaida members.

The military team has left the site, but no conclusions from its investigation are available, said Clarke and Rear Adm. John Stufflebeem, deputy operations director for the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Clarke said the situation in Afghanistan is so chaotic that soldiers can't be sure that someone who identifies himself as an American reporter really is one. Days before the Sept. 11 attacks, anti-Taliban leader Ahmed Shah Massood was assassinated by two men posing as journalists, Clarke noted.

Bennett said the incident occurred in a relatively calm situation in the middle of the day, and he said he thought Struck was able to convincingly demonstrate that he was an American reporter.

"Once the situation was explained, I see no reason for them to continue to train weapons on an unarmed American civilian," Bennett said.

Stufflebeem said one priority for the troops at the scene was to keep everyone, including reporters, away from the area.

"To believe that a U.S. serviceman would knowingly threaten, especially with deadly force, another American is hard for me to accept," Stufflebeem said.

"It would make a lot more logical sense to me that he is pointing out that there are hazards in this area. ... I would think that if there was any reference to physical harm in there, it's just a reality of the situation and not that the U.S. forces would bring that upon someone."

In an audio interview posted on the newspaper's Web site, Struck said he asked the soldiers' leader what would happen if he ignored their warnings and continued to the missile strike site. That's when the soldier said the reporter would be shot, Struck said.

"It wasn't delivered in a joking way," Bennett said of the threat. "I've never heard of an exchange quite like that, between an American soldier and an American reporter."

AP-ES-02-11-02 1701EST

This story can be found at : http://ap.tbo.com/ap/breaking/MGAKMTTUKXC.html

[Grampa Dave]

Too bad your arrogant little clymer wasn't over there!

I will take the word of Rummy anytime versus yours or some reporter working for a left wing mediot!

[Cogadh na Sith]

Struck said he asked the soldiers' leader what would happen if he ignored their warnings and continued to the missile strike site. That's when the soldier said the reporter would be shot, Struck said.

The reporter was reporting. The soldier was soldiering.

The reported reported that the soldier was, in fact, soldiering. What's the problem?

BTW I've got a press pass, I'm going to barge in and take pictures of you on the toilet.

[John W]

Don't know if you've noticed or not,but,a President probably-if they held true to form-less than 20% of the media voted for continues to enjoy support from 85% of the American people,the war on terror is going well,the Enron bs hasn't stuck and they are trying very hard to become relevant again while knocking the President off his current pedestal.Please take what they say with a grain of salt.

[spqrzilla9]

You are right! There is NO reason we need to know what happened there. If the military tells us what we need to know, that's good enough for me, and it should be good enough for any True American! No need for reporters to be in over there at all, they should stick to reporting cats in trees in their hometowns.

Rather silly strawman you built there. Reporters don't have the right to blunder around in the middle of combat operations. And saying that, as I have, doesn't mean that I'm urging some sort of stupidities as you attempt to put in my mouth.

Try to do better.

[Pompah]

An American REPORTER.!! Well, that's different.
If it's a "Hot Scoop" he's looking for,Mabey they could get him a clearence to go alone into the target area AHEAD of the nasty U.S.Middile Strike.
That should solve a problem or two. Film at Eleven.

[spqrzilla9]

"To believe that a U.S. serviceman would knowingly threaten, especially with deadly force, another American is hard for me to accept," Stufflebeem said.

I hate to correct the Admiral, but I'm forced to point out how often the news media has informed us that they are not American.

[Miss Marple]

I see your thinly veiled sarcasm. There are several good reasons for not allowing the reporter to visit the site:

1.)Danger to the reporter, and danger to others because of the reporter's presence. This would include the possibility of the reporter setting off unexploded ordinance and/or drawing fire from rogue Taliban elements lurking in the area.

2.)Custody of evidence in situations like this is of prime importance, especially if we did get bin Laden. The presence of a reporter clomping around and spreading DNA all over the place is not conducive to good evidence gathering.

3.) Reporters are notoriously looking for sensationalism, and we do not need pictures of body parts sent all over the world, stirring up the Arab street.

4.) It is quite possible that classified equipment was being used, either in the evidence gathering or in the original strike, and the reporter's presence would compromise security.

These are four logical and reasonable reasons for why I think the military was correct.

An added emotional reason, based on nothing but gut instinct, is that I would trust the lowliest potato peeling private in our Army far more than some hot-shot Washington Post reporter.

[Krodg]

"We have questions about exactly ... on what basis the military in Afghanistan prevents American reporters from reporting on aspects of military operations in Afghanistan," Bennett said. Perhaps they didn't want another foolish reporter falling prey to terrorist and holding the American public hostage. "Once the situation was explained, I see no reason for them to continue to train weapons on an unarmed American civilian," Bennett said. Given actions of reporters from the past, I see every reason to do this. "To believe that a U.S. serviceman would knowingly threaten, especially with deadly force, another American is hard for me to accept," Stufflebeem said. To knowingly threaten, especiaaly with stupidity, our military forces is hard for me to accept.

[ez]

Perhaps if the reporter wasn't trying to prove the soldier was a babykiller, the soldier would be more apt to allow him access.

[Mark17]

Hiccup maybe? LOL

[3catsanadog]

BBBBBut what about the public's right to know?!?

[muawiyah]

I certainly would have had no problem whatsoever threatening to shoot a WarshPost newsie if he or she made one step further toward danger.

It would be for the newsie's own good!

[3catsanadog]

Hiccups?

[OldFriend]

The media makes up it's own entitlements.

[ez]

Right gramps, that's why Amearicans go to war, to support our ability to be told the truth by the government, not by some pesky reporter who might not get "the facts" right.

Neither the government nor reporters have established their credibility to report the "facts" right.

[CIB-173RDABN]

"To believe that a U.S. serviceman would knowingly threaten, especially with deadly force, another American is hard for me to accept," Stufflebeem said

---

This person has never been in the military. I was once on guard duty on pay day for the pay officer, I was armed with a loaded weapon. I would not have hesitated to challenge anyone not suppose to be in the area I was guarding and certainly call for the officer in charge to make any decisions.

While in Viet Nam, while on guard duty, I was not as nice when I challenged someone. Letting someone get past you that should not have gotten past you is a quick way to end up in deep trouble, and that is only from the Sergent. I am not saying these men posed a threat, but they had no business there, and the guard certainly did the correct thing.

These guys (the newspeople) of the military, of war, of guard duty. They were lucky they were not shot.

Arrogance is the only word I can use to describe them.

[Bikers4Bush]

"We have questions about exactly ... on what basis the military in Afghanistan prevents American reporters from reporting on aspects of military operations in Afghanistan," Bennett said.

How about the basis that the reporters are too stupid to use the sense that god gave them and stay away from a military operation.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Reporters think they are above the law, the rest of us, and the military. Reporters are nothing but common citizens with no special rights or privileges. I guess liberals always think that they are special.

[Jerez]

Note that the soldier didn't say that HE PERSONALLY would shoot the reporter -- only that the reporter 'would be shot.' In other words, there's a strong likelihood that you will be shot if you go into the middle of a battle scene! Same thing here in Oakland! :-/