THE NEW YORK TIMES reports today that the US military in Iraq is using decoys to bait potential insurgents.After placing the bait, snipers observed the area around it, Captain Didier said in his statement. “If someone found the item, picked it up and attempted to leave with the item,” he said, “we would engage the individual, as I saw this as a sign that they would use the item against U.S. forces.” (Engage is a military euphemism for firing on or killing an enemy.)
Uh, the enemy won't be picking up stuff anymore now that they know what the US military is doing.
Did the New York Times have the right to publish this information? Didn't they just reveal classified information that could help the war effort?
The information was learned during court proceedings and therefore it is public information. But should the media reveal such secrets?
11 comments:
I think that the reason that this was published is because it is controversial in an ethical nature. Not just for shock value.
The 'baiting' idea could lead to the killings of innocents who were just curious and the whole program resembles entrapment; because it's just like planting justifiable evidence except doing it before you kill the enemy.
Normally, I'd be completely opposed to publishing military 'secrets' and am reguarly aggravated by some of the things that the media puts out there that undermines our efforts in war, not to mention endangers live. However, this is more a question of being humane in warfare rather then one of "Oh, cool! We found military classified stuff out!" So, even though it is kinda borderline, it'd be ok to publish it.
This is another example of negative consequences media causes. It was like when the local news reported on the parts of homemade bombs and how to assemble them. People need to know to possibly recognize homemade bombs and better prepare for them, but there are people that go and make bombs from the information. It's a difficult bargain.
As far as the NY Times story, it wasn't something that we, American citizens need to know and might hurt the troops' success in Iraq and therefore probably shouldn't have been mentioned. It certainly is interesting, but it was totally not worth it, considering the consequences it might cause.
But looking at the picture, I find it hard to imagine that the enemy would not go for this simply due to some information he heard was reported in America. I don't think he/she would take the risk of being killed for this. What if it was a real person?
Oh ... the picture and the story don't actually match up perfectly.
The story is about military leaving weapons around as bait, and then killing the people who take the weapons.
The image on the post is from Iraq but its actually a soldier drawing fire as a distraction so troops could move elsewhere.
My fault.
- George (the teacher)
Leaving weapons around as bait?? What makes them think these people wont use the weapon and strike first?? Hmmm.
Enea said...
The media should not reaveal such secrets when the country is at war. It should reveal those secrets after the war.
I dont think it should have been published, now its basically a useless plan. I sometimes think there's too much info in the media that hurts more than helps..even if they just want to keep us "informed."
sarah schu
the secret shouldn't have been revealed because it is one of the strategies that is being used to help us. Remember when Geraldo basically drew up a map of where the US troops were located and he got sent back home?
sometimes the media does step boundaries with war issues. every time we think were close to osama, they show a map of the region and the mountains where our military thinks he is, so if he actually is there, he has plenty of time to leave. is giving the people news worth putting parts of a war in jeopardy?
So some people think the media fouled up by publishing the plans?
Think about why the media published the story: do you think the media think that its wrong to lure people in and then kill them?
What if some teenager walks over to the "bait" and just looks at it because he/ she is curious? All of the sudden, BOOM! And they're dead.
That's okay, right? We're in a war, right?
Is the media publishing these details because they believe the military is doing something wrong?
- George (the teacher and devil's advocate)
The NYT doesn't give 2 poos about the lives of American military in the quagmire of Iraq if it helps sell newspapers and appeals to their liberal slant. BUT they gladly support liberal causes through editorial slant and discounted advertising (i.e. the 'Traitor' full page recently run at a discounted rate)... you could call this the 'Dan Rather' syndrome. Excuse my cynicism but maybe Rupert Murdoch will buy them and 'adjust' the editorial slant ala Fox News! Honestly the thought that the NYT would throw US military lives under the bus under the guise of 'journalism' vs. Iraqi terrorists disgusts me. Is there no shame or patriotism?
The NY Times is a disgrace. Sometimes I wonder just who they are supporting. This isn't the first time the very liberal, very, very left leaning NY Times has disclosed secrets. The NY Times makes me sick.
Paul Klein
USN/USNR vet of 14 years
Post a Comment