Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by mrpg on Sunday April 08 2018, @07:04AM   Printer-friendly
from the nobody-think-of-the-airplanes dept.

An agency that owns a number of black helicopters has derided "conspiracy theorists" who have spoken out against the DHS's plans to monitor journalists:

A spokesman for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Friday pushed back against a report warning of the agency's plan to compile a list of media professionals and influencers as part of a "media monitoring" effort.

The plan outlined in a FedBizOpps.gov posting by DHS this week says the agency will create a database of "any and all media coverage" related to the agency or specific events, with a list of more than 290,000 global news sources searchable by location and individual reporters.

[...] Responding to a tweet from the Committee to Protect Journalists, which shared the Forbes report, DHS spokesman Tyler Houlton suggested that critics who cited the department's news tracking plan as a supposed attack on the press were "conspiracy theorists." "Despite what some reporters may suggest, this is nothing more than the standard practice of monitoring current events in the media," Houlton tweeted. "Any suggestion otherwise is fit for tin foil hat wearing, black helicopter conspiracy theorists."

Also at CNN and CBS.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 09 2018, @01:56AM (9 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @01:56AM (#664126) Journal

    You saw no murder in that video. You saw combat troops engaging a combat unit. The reporters were EMBEDDED INTO that combat unit. There was no war crime, there was no murder. Even the children who were injured does not constitute any war crime, because whoever was in the van brought those children into an active combat area. Perhaps the people in the van were simply ignorant, perhaps they meant well, but they still screwed up by bringing their kids with them. There was no crime. The video is still available - why don't you watch it, and try hard to pick out the weapons carried by the Iraqi's who were killed. Then, you take a damned good look at the camera - and tell me again that you can tell the difference between the camera and a shoulder fired rocket, from miles away, looking through a somewhat grainy lens.

    Further, listen closely to the radio chatter. This particular Iraqi unit that was shot up had been shooting at our own ground troops, just minutes before the arrival of the helicopter crew.

    Try to understand the situation before passing judgement. Gunning down a combat unit that is trying to kill you and your friends is EXACTLY what combat troops are SUPPOSED TO DO.

    If you can manage all of the above, you may now be ready to consider that old quote: War is hell. Innocent people do die in war. It sucks ass, but it happens. And, that is why I was opposed to going to war in Iraq. Bad shit happens to good people, and when the bullets start flying, a lot of bad shit happens to a lot of people, both good and bad. But, none of what happens in that video constitutes a war crime.

    Please - educate yourself. You may very well blame George Bush for the deaths you see in that video - but don't blame the troops. A man with a gun doesn't become a god. He is not omnipotent, he can't know everything about the people he finds in his sights. He can only act or react according to his training, his orders, and/or his perceptions.

    Try it some time. Get out there, and learn what it's really like.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by arcz on Monday April 09 2018, @02:11AM (2 children)

    by arcz (4501) on Monday April 09 2018, @02:11AM (#664135) Journal
    Nonetheless, he had a right under natural law to expose that video. That does not make him a traitor. No government has the right to kill people and conceal that fact. National law be damned.
    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 09 2018, @03:36AM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @03:36AM (#664174) Journal

      We disagree, arcz. Manning's first loyalty should be to his country, his second loyalty should be to his unit. He betrayed his unit. I'll not forgive or forget Manning's betrayal - nor will I forgive or forget his motivations. Manning was a discipline problem long before he betrayed his unit, going so far as to strike a senior non-commissioned officer. Manning betrayed his unit out of childish spite. He had no higher motivations than to embarrass his mates.

    • (Score: 1) by khallow on Monday April 09 2018, @03:54AM

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @03:54AM (#664183) Journal

      Nonetheless, he had a right under natural law to expose that video.

      Natural law like the strong rule the weak? And what rights exist under natural law? I have to agree with Runaway here. What right exists when he had sworn not to do what he did, and no actual law was broken?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @02:47AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @02:47AM (#664155)

    "You saw no murder in that video."

    Yes, I did. I'm not blind.

    "You saw combat troops engaging a combat unit."

    No, I definitely did not. I did not watch it under the influence of hallucinogens, however, is that what you recommend?

    "The reporters were EMBEDDED INTO that combat unit."

    No, they were moving independently on the street while the only 'combat unit' in the area was strafing anything that moved.

    "There was no war crime, there was no murder."

    Cold blooded murder, recorded for posterity. Get off the drugs and take a look.

    "Even the children who were injured does not constitute any war crime, because whoever was in the van brought those children into an active combat area."

    The 'active combat area' being their entire country? You're seriously justifying the murder of children by asserting they should not have been in their own country, on the streets of their own hometown? What strange contortions you go through to avoid acknowledging the obvious.

    I guess it makes sense now, why you'd need the drugs.

    But, FYI, there is no exemption to the laws of war for 'active combat zones' - in fact that's exactly where they are expected to be applied!

    "Gunning down a combat unit that is trying to kill you and your friends is EXACTLY what combat troops are SUPPOSED TO DO."

    But we're not talking about that. We're talking about the part where they gunned down numerous civilians, including a couple of Reuters employees, in cold blood.

    Of course there's more to it - when the video was exposed this whole incident had been covered up and denied. US forces denied any knowledge, let alone responsibility. Those Reuters guys? Yeah someone whacked em, no idea who, we didn't see a thing. If the private hadn't spoken up, those people's families might still not know what happened to them.

    "Then, you take a damned good look at the camera - and tell me again that you can tell the difference between the camera and a shoulder fired rocket, from miles away, looking through a somewhat grainy lens."

    And here you actually change tack abruptly, as if you became aware of the utter bankruptcy of your prior argument - you abandon it! A new justification. It wasn't intentional, they just couldn't see well enough to know what they were shooting.

    Are you going to stick with that, or change your theory again, when I point out (as you most certainly know already) that the very first and most important rule you have to follow when you pick up a weapon is to never fire it without being certain of your target? It is the obligation of the man working the weapon to know what he's aiming at, or not to fire; it is not the obligation of non-combatants to stay out of his sights. That's not how it works, that's never been how it works, it's an absurdly bankrupt theory whose real basis is clearly your unwillingness to simply call a spade a spade and admit what you saw with your own eyes.

    "If you can manage all of the above, you may now be ready to consider that old quote: War is hell. Innocent people do die in war. It sucks ass, but it happens. And, that is why I was opposed to going to war in Iraq. Bad shit happens to good people, and when the bullets start flying, a lot of bad shit happens to a lot of people, both good and bad. But, none of what happens in that video constitutes a war crime."

    You're right about all of it except the last sentence. No matter how you try to defend and excuse it, it's still murder, and it's still a crime.

    "You may very well blame George Bush for the deaths you see in that video"

    We can lay plenty of blame on him without exonerating these murderers in any way. Difficult as it may be, individuals are still responsible for their actions. Following orders is not a defense, it wasn't a defense after WWII and it isn't now. http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/imtconst.asp [yale.edu]

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 09 2018, @03:33AM (4 children)

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @03:33AM (#664172) Journal

      Have you bothered to read any evaluations or commentary that isn't just hateful of the US and it's military? The wikipedia page is rather neutral, try it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/July_12,_2007_Baghdad_airstrike [wikipedia.org] Even Wikileaks admits that there were armed men among those shot at.

      If your only interest is to demonize US troops, then PLEASE, don't read the wiki page. If however, you are interested in understanding WTF happened, the wiki isn't a bad place to start.

      I do have to laugh at an idiot comment from the Washington Post. They claim that it is unclear whether the journalists were killed by US fire or by Iriaq insurgents. Even the most ignorant people watching that video can see that they were killed by US fire.

      The wiki page does pose a decent question - what are the rules for "embedded" reporters. Among other comments,

      In an interview on NPR on April 6, the day after the Collateral Murder video release, David Finkel pointed out that the Reuters reporters were not embedded with anyone, but working independently. He also gave his view of the context of the killings:

              the Reuters guys walked into the hottest spot of a very hot morning. There had been running gun battles. There had been a lot of RPG, grenade fire and so on, and they were doing what journalists do. They heard about something, they came to it and they just wanted—from everything I've learned since, they were just there to get that side of the story.[75]

      The Rueters reporters weren't "officially" embedded, apparently - but they did, in fact, actually accompany insurgent troops. That's "embedded" in my mind. Especially after Rueters had talked about embedding reporters in Iraq to capture the other side of the story.

      You, Mr. AC, have something of a duty to read that wiki article, in it's entirety. Unless you make some attempt to understand the issues, you are unfit to discuss the issues. Read it. Read it all. Don't skip the parts that differ from your pre-existing opinion.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @03:44AM (3 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 09 2018, @03:44AM (#664177)

        "The wikipedia page is rather neutral"

        No, it's not, not even close. It's a tendentious apologia filled with nonsense, you even noticed some of it

        "They claim that it is unclear whether the journalists were killed by US fire or by Iriaq insurgents. Even the most ignorant people watching that video can see that they were killed by US fire."

        Exactly.

        I've read all the apologia, and clearly you have as well. It's all bullshit, propaganda after the fact to justify the indefensible.

        And you clearly know that, even if you aren't quite ready to admit it to yourself.

        When I was a school child I found it incomprehensible, unfathomable, that a modern, well educated country with lots of good people like Germany could become a criminal regime like the third reich. I bet you did too. Look around you. This is how it happens. What you're doing right now, clinging to lies because the truth is too horrible to face. That's how good people allow it to happen.

        • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday April 09 2018, @05:05AM (2 children)

          by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Monday April 09 2018, @05:05AM (#664205) Journal

          You almost make sense. As I've already mentioned, the invasion of Iraq was unjustified. But, your blind spot is the military personnel. Given that the US declared war, and that the military is bound to obey the orders of it's civilian commanders, the military had to go. Given the situation on the ground that day, the airmen made decisions that were correct and proper. The military personnel cannot be accused of murder, because no murder was committed.

          Now, if you want to discuss Bush/Cheney and the political machine that put the military into Iraq, you'll find that I am far less defensive of my country. If you want to discuss how our nation is moving in the direction of the Third Reich, you'll find that I am very unforgiving of my country. Throughout this discussion, I have only attempted to help you understand that once the bullets have begun to fly, no one, except maybe God, really knows what the hell is going on.

          If you care to understand better what combat really is, there are some fiction authors who are veterans, who have written some amazingly accurate stories. I can recommend David Drake, and his series 'Hammer's Slammers'. Futuristic sci-fi combat, which does a damned good job of portraying the PEOPLE who live through impossible situations. I also recommend Tom Kratman. Jerry Pournell's 'There will be War' series is highly recommended, and if you read that, you will be exposed to many other authors well worth reading.

          I also recommend Rudyard Kipling's poetry. Maybe you'll learn not to blame those who wear the widow's rags, those who take the king's coin. They are just men, put into impossible situations, who make mistakes because they are less than gods.