The very definition of war has gone through a change cause by the nature of war we are fighting. Rules must be changed to accommodate the new nature. Sensitive military information must not be freely published in the interest of the security of the operations and our troops. The media should exercise restraint from divulging such information. If it doesn't, then it must be forcibly restrained.

Under the Constitution of the United States, if Congress declares war, as it did in World War II, then absolutely yes. However, since Congress has abrogated its responsibilities in all the wars since, then the answer is no.

In a state of war, the news must be controlled in the interest of national security and the troops' safety. Since evidently, we are not at war without a declaration, then the press has a right to report it.

Overseas in a time of war- absolutely. The media have proven repeatedly their lack of objectivity. They are about ratings and making money. Military blackouts on foreign soil are not unconconstitutional.

If you want to win a war, you cant allow the media total access to your operations. Not in this day and age of Cable TV, Satellite TV, CNN, etc.... You dont know who's watching and what information , directly and indirectly, can be gathered. The Military knows the power of the news media to portray and present Warfare. They've learned how to deal with them now. You can give media access , but not total aceess, you must somehow control the information that goes to the media.

For better or worse, the notion of censoring or controlling the media has fallen by the wayside in the modern world. First - a government is only capable of applying its laws to the media that resides with in its own borders. Second - today the average interested citizen obtains a mere fraction of their information from the traditional media, be that newspapers, periodicals, the radio or national network television. In the last 5 years The Druge Report, Aljazeera and the blogg community have blown the lid off the major media oligopoly. Today the corporately controlled media sector is just passing on what has already made it out into the public domain via other channels. I disagree that the media was controlled by the government for the first year or so of the Iraq war. I really don't think the U.S. government is that sophisticated. I think what was seen in the media was a combination of two things; the bias of the media outlets, some were more pro-war than others, and a race to grab ratings by giving the public what they wanted to see, and in the early stages with a generally pro-war public, that was good news stories about how well the war was going. And one final point, if military secrets are so poorly guarded that the media can get to them, do you not think the enemy could get the same information? Are the media not performing a due dillegence role for the military by letting them know that they have a leak somewhere?

One small note: it's sorta dumb to broadcast where the good guys are on a public channel that the bad guys watch. Sometimes journalists need to think a little bit more before they grope for ratings.

Why should they prohibit when they already control the media? Does anyone with 3 neurons in their head honestly believe that our media properly covered the war? Haven't we had this discussion already? Our press didn't cover the CIVIL WAR with much accuracy. . .grow up, kids - you've been lied to.

Yes, the government should prohibit the news media from reporting sensitive military information. This only makes good sense, without the prohibition we might as well just send out memos as to our every action.

we as a nation live for the media,but when it comes to our country's security,it must be stopped.recaps once a week in a war situation is enough.it makes me sick to see the fight over who can give the goriest news.also,our journalists are putting themselves in unnecessary jeopardy.

Absolutely. We can't go handing out free intel to people who want to kill us.

Why are we all so quick to absolve the press from showing responsibility? The government shouldn't have to do this. If a journalist comes into possession of classified material which, if it were to find its way into enemy hands, and get published, American soldiers will certainly die. The journalist should then be arrested and tried for such a seditious act. We are an open society, but we classify many, many documents relative to our national security, particularly in a time of war. When something eludes our net of classification, the person who caused it to do so is a spy.

They should have every right. The bastard offspring of satan (aka al queda) have guys probing for this kind of stuff. News stations are not a morale group. If there is something interesting to report, they will do it, regardless of the outcome. Public safety, in my opinion, comes before tabloids and the media.

It should have the absolute right to prohibit publication of sensitive military information. As others have said, essentially this is a no-brainer. If one were to argue the opposite side of this (i.e., the press has an absolute right to publish sensitive info), then logically, the military might just as well put Reuters, Associated Press, and all of the major newspapers and TV news networks on distribution for all operational plans, so that the media could properly inform the enemy of our intentions. Clearly, reporting sensitive information could (more likely, would) put our troops at risk. There's a limit to everything, and military info and plans should be protected in order to protect the troops.

This has got to be a joke the media should always be prohibited from reporting sensitive military information. They used to call this treason and people were hanged for it and rightly so.

This should be spilt right down the middle. As a 13 year old girl I get dizzy when I see this discusting stuff in pictures and video cameras, but I agree that we do have a right to know this stuff. So They should let this stuff out but realize what they are letting out for people to see, because of them I cringe whenever the news comes on.

I can't believe that this is a debate. There are troops, which means living men and women, in harms way to further foreign policy. (Because whether you like to admit it or not, war is the ultimate extension of foreign policy.) Whatever you think of the aims of the war, giving information to the enemy as part of a TV network's desire to bring video game images to living rooms is simple idiocy.

This is a no-brainer. Whether you agree with the current war or not, it would be idiotic to give away information useful to the enemy, but of course there is a gray area regarding what would be legitimately useful for the public to know and probably not deleterious to the military campaign itself.

Sensitive military information? Of course! Absolutely. Without question. However, we've had administrations that played fast and loose with the definition of sensitive military information. That's my only concern.

Absolutely. Freedom of the press does not outweigh the safety of the troops.

Absolutely. Freedom of the press, just like freedom of speech, has its limits. If the media is reporting the location of our troops and other sensitive military information, then the government has every right to restrict it.

When it comes to sensitive intelligence that could mean the difference between life and death for American troops then the government should definitely put a muzzle on the media.

I'll be the first to admit that the media often goes too far in relaying messages to the public. I remember several times last spring thinking, Okay, didn't you just tell everyone where, when and how you're going to attack? Whatever happened to the element of surprise? I believe fully in freedom of the press, but I think the press need to know when to draw the line. They should personally be able to discern what might be damaging to our military personnel, and the studios that only care about making a quick buck should not only be restricted by the government but also held accountable when things go wrong overseas. Whatever happened to Loose Lips Sink Ships???

Yes! We need to protect the lives of our troops and our people. We cannot take one risk. Our men come first, not the media.

Yes, I believe that the government does have the right to restrict the media's reporting during a war. We have to remember that free speech is not an incitement for people to say whatever they want. You can't yell fire in a crowded movie theater. We all remember Gerarldo Rivera's reporting during the war, when he drew up future troop movements in the sand. The element of surprise is the most effective tactic in a war. You don't want the media to reduce the effectiveness of our fighting forces. The media should only report the troop movements occuring on real time; they shouldn't be in the business of forecasting military manuvers. The safety of the troops should be paramount here; the media should not be the one to line them up for the firing squad.

Yeha, they probably should stop it. I mean it's not going to hurt the American public to miss out on a few details here and there especially if those details may in any way aid the cause of the enemy.

Absolutely the government has that right. We don't need traitors like Geraldo telling our enemies where our troops are, etc. I would question the loyalty of those who think otherwise.

When it comes to the safety of our troops, then definately YES. I believe in the freedom of press, but if it could endanger someone's life, then there are times when it's better to keep it under wraps. This is also a problem, on a smaller scale, for serial crimes reported on the news--in the MD/DC/VA sniper case, I think the media played a part in egging the culprits on, leaking information about the case which probably would have been better if kept confidential, and even giving out FALSE information, like saying that there was always a white van on the scene, and people should look out for it (ever notice how common a white van is? It's like asking someone to look out for someone in blue jeans! Plus, it wasn't even true!). Maybe the media has a right to report on events such as these, but I wish they would use discretion on what information they report.