Quote:
Originally Posted by SWTXBelle
So, if you think it will help you militarily, excluding the press is okay? I'm thinking that most countries would probably just as soon not have the press covering them . . . look, if you are planning to violate the Geneva Conventions, or perhaps just engage in behavior which wouldn't play well on the international stage, just claim that you are not allowing the press in because it will interfer with your military objective. (It's a rhetorical question - you've basically already answered it, UGAalum.)
I am curious - what is it about lasting "long enough" (and what is "long enough"?) that would make you agree with me then, and not now?
|
I think violations of the Geneva Conventions are more often handled after the fact anyway. So, limiting press coverage short term isn't going to be an effective long term method of suppression, it wouldn't seem to me. Whatever objective evidence that could be preserved by an international press could still be captured by people in Gaza; whatever could be manipulated by local press can be manipulated by international press.
I have no definitive answer for the how long. It would depend on the circumstances. I would expect international press coverage to resume in Gaza within a month. They apparently halted it when the cease fire ran out in November but were pretty casual about preventing the press from entering until things ramped up in the last few weeks.
A couple more weeks? I'll let you know when it happens.
In other cases, it would depend on how long it took to conclude the mission and what information was available when it was over.
Independent documentation is excellent for us back home, but I don't think it has to be a priority of the party engaged in warfare.
ETA: You've got to remember that I always pretty much distrust the press period, so I'm less likely than most to see them functioning really well as international watchdogs. It's probably just a personality quirk.
Threaded Mode
