Kate Adie

Let’s take a moment to talk about "the war"… or rather, the fairly odd
panic sweeping the nation in the wake of the coming conflict. Now,
we have talked a little bit about this before so I won’t spend too much time
covering the old ground. I have found it fairly interesting to see the various
attempts to dissuade us… but that’s a different rant.

I was however amused by a public radio broadcast I heard yesterday that claimed:

• [[wp:Iraq]] doesn’t have weapons of mass destruction
• If we attack, [[e2:Iraq]] will be forced to attack us with weapons of mass
  destruction

Meanwhile, a trusted source who has spoken personally with a weapons
inspector in Iraq has told me that the average Iraqi is really looking forward
to us clearing out the current dictatorship.

While we are here, go ahead and take a look at the "Boycott
Brand America" silliness. We’ll talk about it later but

here’s the MeFi thread for now.

Ok… the purpose of this post is to respond to some pretty weird [[e2:spin]]
being put onto a fairly straightforward incident.

Kate
Adie was told by the [[wp:Pentagon]] that unknown and unauthorized
transmissions from inside enemy territory during a war might become targeted as
enemy broadcasts.

A completely reasonable concept (see below). Of course, because she is just
chomping at the bit for some publicity and also pretty much our of her mind with
anti-us sentiment at the moment this somehow turned into the US threatening
to deliberately murder independent journalists. This

accusation was made in a radio broadcast.

Right. It also doesn’t help for her to get her name in all the headlines now
that she has recently

given up 150,000 pounds a year from the BBC in order to become independent.

Anyway, there is a huge thread happening

over at MetaFilter about this whole thing. I have included my two [1][2][3] (so far)
posts on the topic below for archival purposes and so you don’t need to go all
the way over there if you don’t want. They have been formatted a little better
here.

• There also a post on this
  
  here
• 
  Kate Adie Syndrome
• 
  In the shadow of Kate Adie
• The
  
  relevant transcript section (also copied below)
• Streaming 26 minute
  
  segment, and the
  
  relevant 3 minutes or
  
  download the show

Enjoy… and remember to look below.

ed note: I put up

another post, and

another, and

another. Oh hell… just keep checking

the thread.

posted by
soulhuntre at
8:35 AM PST on March 13

Absolutely amazing.

This is exactly what is wrong with the "peace" movement at the moment… This
sort of instant ability to get all bent out of shape no matter what the
provocation without any actual understanding – or attempted understanding – of
the issues.

Lets be absolutely clear on what is the situation:

1. There is every reason for military force to be used in a war zone to
   prevent communications that may be of value to the enemy. This is a
   fundamental reality of war.
2. It is the nature of conflict that battlefield decisions need to happen
   extremely rapidly… The amount of time available for deep signal analysis is
   extremely limited in many situations.
3. There is no instantaneous way to differentiate an unknown satellite phone
   transmission from a reporter from one used by the enemy without significant
   prior information from the reporter. Hence the idea of "registering" that
   phone. Commercial satellite phone often contain at least minimal encryption
   that prevents the content of the transmission from being subject to fast
   analysis. Remember, current encryption technology, even On the consumer level,
   is VASTLY in favor of the encryption.
4. It then follows that without significant prior knowledge it is extremely
   reasonable to target those transmissions.

This is not an attempt to "murder" an independent journalist. It is a simple
and practical reality of the modern battlefield. If you make a deliberate choice
to act in a manner indistinguishable from a military target then you take your
chances.

Personally? I am impressed that they are bothering with a "registration"
option and even attempting to make a decision before targeting a transmission
from inside a war zone with regards to a sat phone.

But hey – don’t let facts get in the way … "viva la revolucion!"

While we are discussion battlefield realities…

"If your camera pokes out from behind that wall one more time, I can’t
guarantee I won’t shoot it."
what about even that statemnt is not bullshit? – quoted from

this post

All of it. The statement makes absolutely perfect sense… but to be more
accurate with the situation it would be…

"If your camera pokes out from behind that wall one more time, I can’t
guarantee someone won’t shoot it."

Do you have any idea what kind of reaction times are needed to survive and
achieve victory on a modern battlefield? What you are in effect asking for is
someone to discern between a toy gun and a real one in a gunfight – or a rubber
knife during hand to hand conflict. While you MIGHT manage it you will
eventually get someone who makes a mistake.

Your there with your squad, locking down the street into the haze and smoke –
gunfire is impacting all around you and more is coming all the time. You have
fraction of a second to aim at a target and make a decision whether or not to
fire.

That decision by the way has almost nothing to do with determining the
identity of your target. There is little time… You simplify that process
extremely… Uniform recognition and dividing your area into zones. If no one
from your "side" is in a zone (sector) then you pretty much drop all the
recognition time and simply make tactical decisions. If the zone is potentially
filled with "friendlies" you take more time… How much depends on many factors.

It is not possible to make an entire war zone subject to the time consuming
process of human vision based IFF and succeed/survive.

So… down the block you see something longish and black stick out from
behind a wall… you possibly even see the glint of glass at the front… it is
hard to see exactly what it is… then it’s gone. More gunfire and it’s back…
you take the shot.

• Was it a cameraman? No. It was a soldier with a thermal or IR scope,
  calling in information to his unit about your locations as the optics cut
  through the smoke.
• Was it a cameraman? No. It was a soldier with a laser designation pack,
  painting your position for the ordinance on it’s way from a distant airplane
  or artillery system. And yes, designation lasers can operate in places that
  are visually impaired by smoke.
• Was it a cameraman? No. It was a soldier with a large caliber sniper
  rifle. You didn’t see the barrel because it is comparatively thin… the large
  IR/thermal site has been allowing him to pick off your squad.
• Was it a cameraman? No. It was a soldier with a hand held rocket launcher.
  He is about to blow away the wall you are behind, killing you and several of
  your squad or possibly the 4 men in the tank to your rear. Or maybe the
  helicopter you can hear behind you.
• Was it a cameraman? Yes. He wasn’t anyplace you knew he would be … and
  "they could be anywhere" isn’t an option. On the off chance he was killed then
  it is a tragic accident… but one of those things that can happen when you
  run around a battlefield pointing things at men with guns.

posted by
soulhuntre at
10:33 AM PST on March 13

This is a peace movement issue because it is being used by all the usual
people to try and push some bizarre point about a conspiracy in the Bush
administration. It is being used as "peace" propaganda… exactly the way the
originator intended it to be.

"Is this a new development or something that has been done in the past?
Is it standard practice to target media transmissions (not cameramen) coming
out of a war zone?" – quoted from

this post

Semi sorta 🙂

It has always been a common thing to use broadcast signal tracking to
target enemy command and control position or individual units. This has
occasionally led to friendly fire or misidentification in a battlefield
environment.

However, a few things have changed that increase the danger significantly
for journalists and complicate the problem for those making the decisions.

In the past, one could simply listen in to make a decision on the nature of
the broadcast… while military broadcasts did come in "code" the code itself
was easily distinguished (usually) from normal communication. It was
relatively simple to determine the military or civilian nature of the
broadcast… both were using clear channel voice or morse code.

Later, when military transmission became more sophisticated they began
using dramatically different and better technology than an small news team
could carry and use. So while the details were scarce on the content, the very
nature of the broadcast helped to make the distinguishing features noticeable.
A "simple" broadcast may well be a friendly journalist whereas a burst
transmission frequency hopping one was almost certainly not.

Now however civilian technology has gotten so good that it is once again
usable for military purposes… so the transmission looks a lot like a
military broadcast (unavoidable as military forces begin to use off the shelf
civilian equipment, sometimes for exactly the purpose of causing confusion).
The broadcasts have global reach, are digital and encrypted by nature. It is
no longer possible to distinguish a military and civilian broadcast from these
characteristics.

Of course, there has also always been the very real risk of a journalist
broadcasting something that may well compromise operational security – and
there are very good reasons to prevent that as well.

Given the response time and reach of modern battle field weapons,
especially in a war where there are possible chemical, bio or nuke weapons
deployed means that a real time video feed of a battle or sufficiently
accurate voice feed broadcast to the global news as simple reporting may
provide enough information for a significant strike.

In a perfect world, where we could distinguish civilian and military
communications with great accuracy we may well be willing to take risk
involved in waiting to see if a particular news report was a specific danger
to our troops.

In a world where such identification is impossible it is necessary to treat
every broadcast you don’t know for a fact is friendly as a potentially deadly
weapon – and you need to move to shut it down.

posted by
soulhuntre at
11:53 AM PST on March 13

"you justify threatening to shoot someone by giving an example of a
situation in which it is not known who the person is. That set of
circumstances would seem to preclude the person being told "take my picture
and i’ll kill you". but that is nitpicking, no." –

quoted post

Actually the only "threats" made have been very general… that if you insist
on acting in ways that look like a threat in a war zone you may get shot at.

That’s as far as it went.

"for those of you that talk about the "bizarre conspiracy" that we psychos
worry about, do you honestly see nothing to be alarmed about, not just here,
but in general: given fliescher’s statements, the military’s threats to
reporters, and the constant repetition of "you must be aggin us"."
–

quoted post

Of course there are things to be alarmed about. I am extremely concerned about
much of the "Patriot Act" for instance. I have no inherent trust of the
government and I am sure that things are being spun.

The difference is that I see it on both sides. And at the moment, there is a
whole lotta BS being spouted in the name of "peace".

I also happen to think this war is a good idea… that doesn’t make me an
unthinking sheep.

"if you trust those who stand to benefit most from a given situation to
honestly report the goings-on therein" –

quoted post

And if you think individual reporters like Kate don’t have a lot to gain from
spinning stories and/or have a personal agenda then your very confused.

posted by

soulhuntre at

9:51 PM PST on March 13

"Certainly journalists take risks; many will probably even brave the
Iraqi war zone with this threat hanging over them. But the fact is that this
Pentagon’s "cold pronouncement" probably amounts to a death sentence for most
who dare to make such important, independent broadcasts." –

quoted post

If it is a death sentence then it is one of their own choosing. In the modern
battlefield sending out a digital satellite transmission that looks
significantly liege command and control signals is the equivalent of dressing
up like one of the enemy and running around shooting blanks from a replica
gun.

Your going to get shot at – because you are acting EXACTLY like a target.

If Kate wants to send out her reports in a manner that is significantly less
risky she can use straight up analog voice radio in shortwave. The odds are
much less that she would be fired upon – though by no means is that assured.

"It’s about accountability. Under the guise of protecting journalists,
the Pentagon is instead making sure they are afraid to to their jobs. Shame!"
–

quoted post

It’s about advising them of exactly what the risks are.

What is the solution as some of you see it? Ignore the signals and let an air
strike wipe out a unit or two of troops? I am sure that would look great on
film. How about let the enemy broadcast with impunity and sacrifice a few
thousand American lives? That good?

I don’t buy it. If there was a reliable way to determine reporter from foe (I
won’t use the term friend) I might advocate it – freedom of the press IS
important to me – depending on exactly how much it effected our tactical
decision making ability, and how many troops were put at risk.

A delay of seconds? No problem. Minutes? Maybe, depending on the exact
battlefield circumstance. But a commercially encrypted satphone? Weeks
wouldn’t do it .. or months. You just wouldn’t ever know.

posted by
soulhuntre at
12:18 AM PST on March 14

"I’m not being an absolutist about this. I’m very interested, for
instance, in whether not attempting to discriminate between any broadcast
signals is SOP, and if so exactly why and for how long. I haven’t had much
luck finding hard data. Sorry–can’t take your word for it." –

quoted post

And I’m not asking for you to… by all means do your own research. I am just
telling you what the problems and options are – I don’t claim to speak for
current policy.

I do know that during my training in tanks we were specifically taught to
attack anything that looked like an antenna or broadcast point that we could
not definitively identify as civilian.

In other words we might not put a shell into a building marked "WXYZ Radio"
but we would certainly engage or call in strikes onto a whip antenna sticking
up over a hill.

That’s just life on a battlefield.

"Else what are we fighting for?" –

quoted post

Certainly the fate of an entire military mission is not to be put in jeopardy
so a lone journalist – who has refused to co-operate on even the most basic
level in helping us try not to shoot her – can run around anywhere she wants
in a war zone and act like a target.

Freedom of the press does NOT mean that it is the job of every other US
citizen (soldier or not) to get killed so some reporter can walk through the
world in a special charmed universe free from consequence and danger.

She wants to report from a war zone? Go ahead.

She wants to use equipment that looks like a military broadcast? Go for it.

That’s freedom.

Doing those things and expecting everyone else to cover your ass and risk
their own so you can do it? Hell no.

From the horses mouth…

Go check out the

full interview.