With George W. Bush gone from the White House, "now is the time to renegotiate the rules of engagement between the military and the media," the head of The Associated Press recently declared. "Now is the time to insist that the First Amendment does apply to the battlefield." The AP executive, CEO Tom Curley, argues that the military has "weaponized information" and that President Barack Obama must rein in the Pentagon. By way of example, Curley cites a recent AP report on a $4.7 billion effort to influence opinion "in favor of U.S. military endeavors," such as the intensifying conflict in Afghanistan. "Now is the time to resist the propaganda the Pentagon produces and live up to our obligation to question authority and there by protect our democracy," he said. "Now is the time for the media to sit down with the military and determine a workable set of ground rules that serve the American people."

When a reporter is in the line of fire and or the reporter is putting American troops in harms way, is their "right" to report more important than the troops right to stay alive through security of critical information? When all a reporter is looking for is a way to publish their own slant on the war and not the whole truth, is their "right" to be on the battlefield more important than the soldiers right to being treated fairly? When a reporter films terrorists killing American troops and "won't reveal his sources" does he still have that 1st Amendment right? When a reporter (or a senator) accuses service men and women of murder without knowing all the facts is that libel or journalism? The military has reporters and a press corp, there is no need for civilian reporters to be "embedded" with the troops. Unless of course they are just looking for a reason to make the troops look bad by not reporting all of the facts in an incident. Should 1st Amendment rights extend to the battle field?

Read the Full Story