Pentagon Threatens To Kill Independent Reporters In Iraq

Gulufuture.com ^ | 10th March, 2003 | Fintan Dunne, Editor

[dead]

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares.. ..They've been warned."

According to Ms. Adie, who twelve years ago covered the last Gulf War, the Pentagon attitude is: "entirely hostile to the the free spread of information."

"I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs," she told Irish national broadcaster, Tom McGurk on the RTE1 Radio "Sunday Show."

Ms. Adie made the startling revelations during a discussion of media freedom issues in the likely upcoming war in Iraq. She also warned that the Pentagon is vetting journalists according to their stance on the war, and intends to take control of US journalists' satellite equipment --in order to control access to the airwaves.

Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported that the Pentagon has also threatened they: "may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side."

Transcript follows below:

Guests: Kate Adie, BBC; Phillip Knightley, author of The First Casualty, a history of war correspondents and propaganda; Chris Hedges, award winning human rights journalist, and former Irish Times Editor Connor Brady on the Sunday Show, RTE Radio1 9th March, 2003.

Tom McGurk: " Now, Kate Adie, you join us from the BBC in London. Thank you very much for going to all this trouble on a Sunday morning to come and join us. I suppose you are watching with a mixture of emotions this war beginning to happen, because you are not going to be covering it."

Kate Adie: " Oh I will be. And what actually appalls me is the difference between twelve years ago and now. I've seen a complete erosion of any kind of acknowledgment that reporters should be able to report as they witness."

"The Americans... and I've been talking to the Pentagon ...take the attitude which is entirely hostile to the free spread of information."

"I was told by a senior officer in the Pentagon, that if uplinks --that is the television signals out of... Bhagdad, for example-- were detected by any planes ...electronic media... mediums, of the military above Bhagdad... they'd be fired down on. Even if they were journalists ..' Who cares! ' said.. [inaudible] .."

Tom McGurk: "...Kate ...sorry Kate ..just to underline that. Sorry to interrupt you. Just to explain for our listeners. Uplinks is where you have your own satellite telephone method of distributing information."

Kate Adie: " The telephones and the television signals."

Tom McGurk: " And they would be fired on? "

Kate Adie: " Yes. They would be 'targeted down,' said the officer."

Tom McGurk: " Extraordinary ! "

Kate Adie: " Shameless! "

" He said.. ' Well... they know this ...they've been warned.' "

" This is threatening freedom of information, before you even get to a war."

"The second thing is there was a massive news blackout imposed."

"In the last Gulf war, where I was one of the pool correspondents with the British Army. We effectively had very, very light touch when it came to any kind of censorship."

" We were told that anything which was going to endanger troops lives which we understood we shouldn't broadcast. But other than that, we were relatively free."

" Unlike our American colleagues, who immediately left their pool, after about 48 hours, having just had enough of it."

" And this time the Americans are: a) Asking journalists who go with them, whether they are... have feelings against the war. And therefore if you have views that are skeptical, then you are not to be acceptable."

" Secondly, they are intending to take control of the Americans technical equipment ...those uplinks and satellite phones I was talking about. And control access to the airwaves."

" And then on top of everything else, there is now a blackout (which was imposed, during the last war, at the beginning of the war), ...ordered by one Mr. Dick Cheney, who is in charge of this."

" I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs. You will get it later."

[L,TOWM]

Or at least $.13...

[Ditto]

I have a feeling that their uplink equipment will be nothing but fried microchips after we let go with our EMP technology. These guys will not have a clue as to why they can't get a connection. Then they will notice that their watches stopped, their cell phones and lap tops are dead and their Toyota won't start.

[razorback-bert]

The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions

I can only hope this includes the CNN Atlanta site.

[skeeter]

"Well, they know this - they've been warned" is not quite the same as "who cares, they've been warned" is it.

[CatoRenasci]

Sounds reasonable to me: report from the Iraqi side if you want, but understand there'll be no special consideration if you're in the way. Also understand that we intend to deny the enemy use of all electronic spectra, that includes satellite communications. We detect emissions, and we'll close 'em down. If you want us to treat you as reporters, play by our rules on our side.

Simple, direct, correct.

I like it.

[DoughtyOne]

Not that it was an excellent idea, in some cases probably needed, the thinning of wolves used to be accomplished with a $5 bounty per wolf. Take in proof and collect a bounty. My tongue in cheek comment reflected back to that time.

[Jack Stephens]

The above is a skein of completely unsupported claims. A single quote attributed to an unnamed "senior Pentagon officer" is no basis on which to make claims about threats from "the Pentagon."

Let us take this as an example of the quality of reporting that Ms. Adie would offer us from Iraq: thanks, but no thanks.

[CatoRenasci]

I always knew there was a good reason to have a mechanical watch!

[Kay Soze]

I heard Martin Sheen wants to become an independant reporter in Iraq!

[doug from upland]

Stay the hell out of our way. You can report when we liberate the country. Maybe, you will even report on all the poison gas and atrocities.

[DallasDeb]

Aw, too bad! My heart is bleeding for them. /not!

[San Jacinto]

"I am enormously pessimistic of the chance of decent on-the-spot reporting, as the war occurs,"

I can just imagine the decent, on the spot reporting you would get from this broad.--"Prior to the conlict, the Americans apparently stored 20,000 litres of antrax in this Iraqi baby milk factory."

[Centurion2000]

To journalists: Friendly fire is not.

[SauronOfMordor]

Realisticly speaking, if news satellite reports can give Sadaam information about what's happening, and allow Sadaam's representatives to relay orders to field commanders (disguised as "news interviews" ), then the news service has just become part of Iraq's Command and Control network, and becomes a legitimate target.

And any news reporter relaying real-time info about the actions of our troops becomes an enemy spy in time of war, and may be summarily executed.

[DallasDeb]

You think we'll use EMP? I heard we may be testing experimental laser-based weapons--and I'm not talking about targeting.

[Scott from the Left Coast]

Excellent. The press is 1. Hostile to the Bush Administration; 2. Hostile to the U.S. military; 3. Supportive of anti-U.S. efforts by France et. al. 4. Supportive of U.N. hegemony...

Need I go on?

[harpseal]

Hey don't forget CBS. Seriously, why should this surprise these presstitutes. If they are with the Iraqis and using a satelite uplink then we may reasonably presume it is part of Iraqi comand and control. That is a totally legitimate target as it could as easily be an artillery spotter or some other aspect of the Iraqi military.

[angkor]

Why are they whining?

Answer: They're not really "journalists."

They're spies with realtime reconaissance equipment, which they'll use to transmit strategic information to the enemy (via CNN).

As "journalists" they should be the brave and objective heroes they claim to be, and step into the fray regardless of any promise (or not) of their safety.

[EternalHope]

Lemme see if I got this right:
1. We're fighting a war. People are dying. We want the ones doin' the dyin' to be them other guys.
2. We warn people not to do things that might make some of our guys die.
3. Someone does those things anyway, even after we warn 'em not to.

I'd call that suicide.

'Course, if they happened to be French, we wouldn't need to warn 'em either. Enemy combatants, ya know. Might apply to CNN too.

[Mr_Magoo]

Hmmmm, They seem to think that sat. uplink, video cameras, sat. phones, etc. will still work after the EMP bombs go off . . .