Not sure there’s anything here but a waste of time. Nothing requires that a unit allow a reporter to embed. In fact –just my opinion- real reporters don’t embed. Anyway, seems to me to be a contractual relationship. As a condition of being embedded the reporter must wear or refrain from wearing certain clothing. They can say no to embedding and wear whatever they want. From: mark@markzaid.com [mailto:mark@markzaid.com]
Sent: Sunday, August 07, 2011 6:29 PM
To: neal@puckettfaraj.com; haytham@puckettfaraj.com; eric@puckettfaraj.com
Subject: Fwd: Re: You up for a scrap? On Mon, Aug 8, 2011 at 2:52 AM, <mark@markzaid.com> wrote: Mark,
The embed agreement forbids embedded writers/journos/etc from wearing
camouflage in combat. This endangers the lives of the troops, embeds, and
endangers mission success. I believe there is no legal basis for
this prohibition, especially so when the gear in question is not US issue.
Am not thinking of lawsuit, simply writing something that contests the
agreement, and then I simply would wear camouflage during combat operations
and wait to see what they do. If they disembed for this, then possibly
lawsuit. By the way, the local commander wants me to wear camouflage during
combat missions. The last major mission I went on, this past weekend,
resulted in 27 firefights. We took 1x KIA, 2x wounded. Environmental
camouflage may not have prevented these gunshots, but it certainly prevents
many others that we never hear about. I think that the Pentagon can be
pushed back in the court of public reality simply by making a valid argument
(in dispatch form) that they have no legal basis for this policy, and that
the Pentagon itself has decided to endanger the lives of its own troops.
Where do you fit in? I would write the dispatch using photos, and run it by
you for a read, and insert your name/creds quoting your opinion.
What do you think?
--
Very Respectfully,
Michael Yon
Can you send me a copy of the embed agreement?
--
Very Respectfully,
Michael Yon
|