1.) Are they allowed to carry weapons themselves? Probably not a military issue fully-auto, but how about a basic sidearm should a situation occur where they feel they need to defend themselves?
2.) It was mentioned that the US put most (all?) of the reporters through training sessions to let them know what they were allowed to do. What was contained in these sessions?
Personally…I sure as hell wouldn’t be there unless I was packing at least SOMETHING.
Thanks
Interesting question. I don’t have a definitive answer, but my feeling is that they probable wouldn’t be allowed to carry a gun. The reason they are embedded is to ensure they’re safety. If you’ve got 100 guys armed to the teeth with you then you shouldn’t need to be carrying anything yourself. If they were travelling alone then they would be in much greater danger.
I am looking for a cite but I would say no, they are not armed. Didn’t this come up during the Gulf war, when journalists could have gotten a shot at Saddam if they’d been armed?
And if I was a soldier, I don’t think I’d be too comfortable with a frightened, inexperienced reporter armed behind me. Sounds like a good way to get shot.
The Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists offers little specific guidance here, but this one may help …
“Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.”
A reporter carrying a gun is no longer a reporter. They are a soldier, regardless of what their press credentials may say. After all, that’s how the enemy may perceive them.
I remembered something I’d seen in the John Wayne movie, The Fighting Seabees. I looked for a better, non-hollywood cite as to this fact and found it here:
This is, of course, before the modern implementation of the Geneva Convention. But that’s another debate.
-AmbushBug
I’ll ask my enmbedded cousin when he gets back, if you remind me by bumping the thread once this whole Godawful mess is over.
No they don’t carry guns. They do however have soldiers assigned to them for protection.