See below. Sounds like the clash of two now muddied terms has created big problems. "Combatant" is muddied in the new world of terrorism & asymetric warfare, and "Journalist" is now anyone with a blog. If a "journalist" is conducting surveillance of opposing forces or attempting to recruit combatants or perhaps engaging in even more overt military actions, do they deserve the protections a Walter Cronkite reporting live from a war zone would have deserved?
It reminds me of one of the ways that client/attorney privilege can be pierced. If the attorney is part of the criminal conspiracy or has taken part in crimes along with the client, its no longer an attorney-client relationship.
Michael Rubin, a Middle East expert at the American Enterprise Institute, said the manual reflects today’s muddled world of journalism.
“It’s a realization that not everyone abides by the same standards we do,” said Mr. Rubin. “Just as Hamas uses United Nations schools as weapons depots and Iran uses charity workers for surveillance, many terrorist groups use journalists as cover.”
Mr. Rubin recalled that two al Qaeda terrorists posed as journalists to assassinate anti-Taliban leader Ahmad Shah Massoud. Chechen Islamists went on missions with camera crews.
“Journalists are the new consultant. Anyone can claim to be one,” he said. “No American serviceman should ever be killed because a politician told them they had to take a foreign journalist at his or her word.”
Army Lt. Col. Joseph R. Sowers, a Pentagon spokesman, explained the reasoning behind the inclusion of “unprivileged belligerents” as journalists.
= new reply since forum marked as read
