Read the first amendment. Learn. Repeat.

Apparently, Prince Harry has been over playing soldier in Afghanistan. Good for him.

He's been there for ten weeks, and the British press decided not to publicize it for "security reasons" - allegedly he'd be a great big target. I doubt it, from what I gather Prince Harry is both as smart and as well-loved as a box of hair, but whatever. That's the British media's decision. Good for them*.

The Drudge Report broke the story today. Good for them. The big networks then picked it up. Good for them.

The MoD now has it's panties in a twist over that:

Chief of the General Staff Sir Richard Dannatt, who is head of the British Army, said he was disappointed the news had leaked.

In a statement, he said: "I am very disappointed that foreign websites have decided to run this story without consulting us.

"This is in stark contrast to the highly responsible attitude that the whole of the UK print and broadcast media, along with a small number overseas, who have entered into an understanding with us over the coverage of Prince Harry on operations."

Oh, come the hell on! A few minor little points:
1. You just referred to the British media as in possession of a responsible attitude. I'll buy that about the BBC, and more or less for both the Times and Guardian. The British media gave us reality TV and The Sun. Think about that, man.
2. American journalists don't answer to the British government. Nor do they answer to the American government, nor any government, nor anyone but the public and maybe whatever corporation they've been acquired by. They report the news, regardless of whether or not any given government wants it reported. That's because America truly does have a free press, and to speak in any way disparagingly of that is disgusting.
3. The media, and thus the public being aware that your little prince is off pretending to be GI Joe is not the danger. The danger comes from the war, what with the bullets and the bombs and such. The danger comes from you sending him there at all. If you're that concerned, you could have not sent him.
4. Monarchy is idiotic and has no place in modern society anyway. I know there was some ridiculous orgy of faux-grief when Princess Diana got in a car with a drunk driver and died, but would anyone actually care if Prince Harry was killed in war, any more than any other soldier? At the very least, Princess Diana had done a token amount of charity work before her death. Prince Harry has...joined the army and drunkenly attempted to punch a photographer. Whoo, a real royal hero there.
5. The monarchy is funded by the people. The army is funded by the people. Therefore, if His Highness leaves his nice comfy palace to go try to feel useful in the Army, the people have a right to know. Don't like it? Tough shit.

6.  He's not even ever going to be king!  If it was his father or his older brother, who both are in line to eventually be the head of state, I could maybe, maybe understand.  But he's not, he's like the understudy for a chorus-line position!

Seriously, aren't the troops over in Afghanistan ostensibly fighting for freedom and liberty and all that jazz? Isn't an absolutely free press one of the absolute cornerstones of a free society? Had the media listened to the government in some places in the late 1700's, America probably wouldn't have happened. People have an absolute right to know what their government is doing, and if you want to have a monarchy, then they're included in that. Don't like the precedent of America's free press? You should've fought harder in 1776, chumps.

*I'm assuming, of course, that it was their choice and not some gag law, which would just piss me off even more.

(Note: I still love you, UK. You're just having a rough day. It's okay, my country has plenty of them too.)