Page 1 of 1

#1 Words fail me... ITN reporter's death was apparently murder

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 2:35 pm
by Narsil
Yahoo wrote:OXFORD, England - A coroner ruled Friday that U.S. forces in
Iraq unlawfully killed a British television journalist by shooting him in the head as he lay in the back of a makeshift ambulance during the opening days of the war.

The widow of reporter Terry Lloyd called for the perpetrators to be prosecuted for the "despicable, deliberate, vengeful act." And Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he would ask the attorney general to take steps to bring to justice those responsible for the death.

But prosecution of U.S. service members seemed unlikely.

Lt. Col. Mark Ballesteros, a Pentagon spokesman, said an investigation into the killing of Lloyd, 50, a veteran reporter for the British TV network ITN was completed in May 2003 and "determined that U.S. forces followed the applicable rules of engagement."

"The Department of Defense has never deliberately targeted noncombatants, including journalists," he said. "We have always gone to extreme measures to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage."

Ballesteros said the Pentagon will continue to work with news organizations to "do everything realistically possible to reduce the risk on an inherently dangerous battlefield, but we must remember that there are inherent risks in covering a war. "

The coroner inquest was unable to determine whether the bullets that killed Lloyd in southern Iraq on March 22, 2003, were fired by U.S. ground forces or helicopters.

State Department spokesman Sean McCormack later described Lloyd's death as a tragedy, but concurred with the Pentagon that an investigation had found the troops involved had not broken the law.

"(Lloyd's death) was a tragic circumstance that occurred in a war zone ... it's a tragedy. It's a tragedy for his friends and for his family," he said.

Aidan White, the head of the International Federation of Journalists, the world's largest organization of journalists, said: "If this was murder, as the court suggests, and the U.S. is responsible, it is certainly a war crime."

The London-based National Union of Journalists welcomed the coroner's decision and also called the killing "nothing short of a war crime." Jeremy Dear, the group's general secretary, said: "The killing of journalists with impunity must never, ever go unpunished. Any attempt to silence journalists in this way must never succeed."


Witnesses testified during the inquest that Lloyd — who was driving toward the southern Iraqi city of Basra with fellow ITN reporters — was shot by Iraqi troops who overtook his car, then died after U.S. fire hit a civilian minivan being used as an ambulance and struck him in the head.

"Terry Lloyd died following a gunshot wound to the head. The evidence this bullet was fired by the Americans is overwhelming," Walker said. "There is no doubt that the minibus presented no threat to the American forces. There is no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire."

ITN cameraman Daniel Demoustier, the sole survivor of the incident, told the inquest ITN's two four-wheel drive vehicles were overtaken by a truck carrying Iraqi forces and that gunfire erupted.

Demoustier, a Belgian, said he jumped from the flaming car and lay in the sand, waiting for the shooting to stop. Demoustier said he tried to stand to signal U.S. tanks in the area but they resumed firing at the clearly marked ITN vehicles.

Demoustier said he saw a makeshift ambulance arrive and pick up people. He was later taken to safety in the car of a British newspaper reporter.

The coroner said Friday that an Iraqi civilian drove up in a minivan and picked up four wounded Iraqi soldiers, then saw Lloyd with a press card around his neck and helped him into the van. Lloyd was shot in the head as the van drove toward a hospital, the coroner said.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Demoustier said after the ruling that the inquest did not make clear whether the bullet that killed Lloyd was fired by a U.S. tank or helicopter. He said the forces in a tank would have been able to see that they were firing at a civilian vehicle, but a helicopter would not.

Lloyd's widow, Lynn, in a statement read by her lawyer, said U.S. forces "allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys in an area in which there were civilians traveling."

Lloyd and the three other ITN crew members were some of the few Western reporters who covered the fighting on their own, while most others were embedded with U.S. or British forces.

Lebanese interpreter Hussein Osman also was killed and cameraman Fred Nerac remains missing and presumed dead.

U.S. authorities didn't allow servicemen to testify at the inquest. Several submitted anonymous statements that the coroner ruled inadmissible.

"I should have heard all evidence from the American personnel," Walker said. "It was not satisfactory or appropriate to read these statements in place of that evidence."

The court watched a video Tuesday, filmed by a U.S. serviceman attached to one of the tanks accused of firing at the reporters' cars. The tape opens with images of Lloyd's vehicle and the Iraqi truck burning amid gunfire. The tanks drive to the cars and inspect them. A minivan — possibly the ambulance — appears and more shots are fired. At the end of the tape, a U.S. soldier shouts, "It's some media personnel! That's media down there!"

A forensic examiner said the first 15 minutes of the tape may have been erased.
And
Yahoo UK wrote:The daughter of ITN reporter Terry Lloyd has said his death in Iraq three years ago "amounts to murder". Chelsey Lloyd was speaking after a coroner found that Mr Lloyd was "unlawfully killed".

She said: "We have waited for three and a half years to hear the truth of how and why my father died whilst trying to report the war for millions of viewers back home.

"The killing of my father would seem to amount to murder which is deeply shocking."

Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner

Andrew Walker said he would write to the Director of Public Prosecutions to call for the US perpetrators to be brought to justice.

Summing up the inquest, Mr Walker said: "It is only now that the sequence of events that led to this tragedy can be discovered, for a tragedy it is when the lives of innocent civilians are lost.

"I am certain that the world is a lesser place following their sad death."

Derby-born Lloyd died on March 22, 2003 near the Shatt Al Basra Bridge in southern Iraq after his four-man team got caught in the crossfire between American and Iraqi forces.

His body was recovered and returned to his family in Cuddington, Buckinghamshire, while the remains of his Lebanese interpreter Hussein Osman were later found and buried.

French cameraman Fred Nerac is still officially classed as missing.

Belgian cameraman Daniel Demoustier survived to tell the coroner how "all hell broke loose" on the road to Basra.

The eight day-long Oxford inquest heard how Lloyd and his team had crossed from Kuwait into Iraq as one of ITN's few unilateral teams, where journalists work independently of the armed forces.

They crossed over the front line in the fierce battle for Basra, and ran into Iraqi soldiers.

Ballistics expert Dr Thomas Warlow confirmed in the inquest that Lloyd was first hit by an Iraqi bullet fired from a mounted machine gun on the pick-up truck, which he could have survived with rapid medical treatment.

But he was then hit in the head by an American bullet as he was taken for medical treatment in a civilian minibus, which killed him outright
.
Again: I'd like for us to get any UK involvement out of fucking Iraq and Afghanistan... NOW!!!

#2

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:13 pm
by Hotfoot
While this is a horrible event, especially if true (let's try to remember that the "verdict" was from a coroner, not a military tribunal), I don't see how you make the jump from an (un)Friendly Fire incident from three years ago to "PULL OUT NOW".

I could see you calling for the blood of the soldiers responsible, I could see you demanding a proper trial and inquiry into the event. However, it does not follow to say that this event, above all else, should be a reason for military withdrawl.

If this was a case of an Iraqi defense force killing the ITN reporter, I could maybe see a call for withdrawl, but seriously, what the hell?

Meanwhile, Yahoo news? Would it kill you to use a, shall we say, more mainstream, dare I say, perhaps, reputable source? Like the BBC? Not asking for much, really.

#3

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:25 pm
by Narsil
I said all UK involvement... whether that be reporters or soldiers... a friendly fire incident isn't going to happen if no one's there to be victim to it...

It's not just Britain, either, there was an article some months back that detailed Canadian Troops being killed by American friendly fire. If it was one constrained incident... it wouldn't be so bad, but with this and also the bloody lowered standards for recruitment... it's just getting worse and worse to be anyone in Iraq or Afghanistan... whether native, American, British, Canadian or... well... anyone.

I'm just so fucking sick of hearing "British troops die to roadside bombs" or "British reporter killed by American fire"... I just want our fucking people out of the way of that bloody clusterfuck of a situation...

#4

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 3:46 pm
by Hotfoot
...

First of all, jackass, this event was three years ago. I don't think I have to point out to you that the lowered standards, as shown in the article you linked, wouldn't have fucking mattered for the event in question. Those soldiers recruited this year wouldn't see action until they had gone through basic training, which is not instantaneous, and, here's a notion - if they fail basic, THEY DO NOT GO IN TO SERVICE. Just because you've enlisted doesn't mean you get to fight.

Friendly fire happens. It's not pretty, it's not good, but it happens. Just like you'll have civilian casualties in any conflict, you'll invariably have friendly fire incidents. UK troops have not just been killed by US troops, but by their own.

But hey, far be it from you to think logically about something that involves America, I suppose. There's legitimate criticism, which clearly needs to be made, and then there's kneejerk reactions, which you are famous for.

The soldiers involved in the deaths need to face a proper inquiry, not just accusations made by coroners and family members. That's the only way it's going to be settled. If it's a British Military Court, that'd be fine by me.

If you really want to look on the face of it though - you may claim that there are fewer friendly fire incidents for UK and Canadian troops, but consider if that's just by total or per capita. The simple fact that the US is supply the bulk of the troops to Iraq means that there's a larger chance for fuckups to occur total, but hey, I guess none of that means much to you.

Good luck pulling the reporters out though. If they want to stay, they're going to stay. The ITN crew stayed in the middle of a warzone without the protection of friendly military support - a situation far more immediately dangerous than the current situation.

#5

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 4:10 pm
by Narsil
Let me put my full opinion on this situation into perspective for you...

Your country (in this case, the USA) is suffering from massive debts as it is, and is the most debted country in North America.

Then, let's say that American troops are sent out to aid the British in... maybe Ireland?... Which is nothing at all to do with you or your country at the end of the day. Your country joins because Margaret Thatcher or John Major put out a political campaign to make a 'coalition of the willing'. For the next few years, your country is engaged in a war which is very quickly draining your economy and slowly killing your soldiers and reporters in a slow trickle of death. Not all of this is the fault of British friendly fire, only some of it is, most of it is indeed the fault of the IRA... but at the end of the day... you want your soldiers out of there and away from the slow trickle of death.

That's my opinion on Iraq... situations like this just cement my opinion somewhat. Now as for the 'lowered recruiting standards wasn't the problem back then' point that you do actually have:

The lowered recruiting standards, while not being a problem at the moment, are going to make things much, much worse... all the more reason to leave.

Rabid advertising and the film "Highschool Musical" aside, I've got nothing against America, I've just got something against British soldiers and reporters dying pointlessly because of Iraq and Afghanistan.

#6

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:22 pm
by B4UTRUST
Alright Narsil, since you're not American nor have you taken an ASVAB test I'll forgive your ignorance of these lower recruiting standards. The ASVAB is the Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery, consisting of four primary areas of testing: Mechanical, Administration, Electrical, and General.

They lowered the acceptable score by what was it? 3.8% I think? That amounts to about a point or three total, not a huge deficency in the testing.

The ASVAB also, as the article stated, does not test some of the most important attributes and abilities that one should possess as a soldier: loyalty, courage, etc. It tests your ability to recognize patterns and do math problems quickly. It is designed to help you and the military find a job for you that is suitable to your abilities that will allow you to serve. So the Army is now accepting recruits who are not able to answer as many math problems in their head in a minute as other branches, or recognize pattern orders as quickly or efficently. This does, in no way, measure their ability to shoot accurately or obey orders.

So your entire argument that lower army recruiting standards on the ASVAB is a total detriment is stupid.

Secondly, nobody forced those reporters to be there. Nobody held a fucking gun to their head and said you will report from the front line combat zone and do it now. They had a choice and they were WELL brief and knowledgable on the risks they were taking. American reporters have suffered the same things happening to them.

Third, at this point most Americans don't seem to want to continue involvement in the Middle East either. However, some of us do realize that it is neccessary to stay the course or else all that has been worked for up until now and all those deaths will be for nothing if the system fails before it is stable.

Also, stating the US is the most debted country in NA isn't really saying much there. We have Canada and Mexico to compete with. Mexico doesn't really do anything or get involved with anything so they're not going into debt at all. And Canada... *shrugs* they too haven't sunk as much into this as we have either.

As for slow trickling death of tropos, lets look at the troop count. Going back from March of 03 by news reports the UK has lost 119 troops. The US? Over 2700 and climbing daily. 119 vs 2700+. Over 22 times the casualty rates. Hell the deaths from my service rank as a little more then a 4th of your entire country. The Army ranks at over 10x. The National Guard at 3x.

And to make a note, how many terrorists attacks have been in the UK in the last few years? The US isn't the only ones being attacked here, it is a problem on world scale, not merely your own little back yard. Yeah.

So I tell you what, to make things right how about this. The UK can pull back everything they've got in theather and sit back. And the next time somebody with a hardon against you guys wants to go fuck you over in a big way and you decide to do something about it, you can go off by yourself and the US will sip a beer and watch.

#7

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 5:45 pm
by Batman
B4UTRUST wrote: Third, at this point most Americans don't seem to want to continue involvement in the Middle East either. However, some of us do realize that it is neccessary to stay the course or else all that has been worked for up until now and all those deaths will be for nothing if the system fails before it is stable.
Which is going to happen anyway unless you're willing to MASSIVELY increase troop presence and stay there for a couple of centuries. And probably even if you were.
As for slow trickling death of troops, lets look at the troop count. Going back from March of 03 by news reports the UK has lost 119 troops. The US? Over 2700 and climbing daily. 119 vs 2700+. Over 22 times the casualty rates. Hell the deaths from my service rank as a little more then a 4th of your entire country. The Army ranks at over 10x. The National Guard at 3x.
Which proves what exactly? British troops and citizens are being killed in an unwinnable war that was started for no good reason. If anything the US should be an order of magnitude MORE eager to get your people out of there than Narsil is.
And to make a note, how many terrorists attacks have been in the UK in the last few years? The US isn't the only ones being attacked here, it is a problem on world scale, not merely your own little back yard. Yeah.
And we all know those terrorists are always from Iraq. Inevitably. And completely failing to turn Iraq into a stable, western-style democracy is definitely going to stop them.
So I tell you what, to make things right how about this. The UK can pull back everything they've got in theather and sit back. And the next time somebody with a hardon against you guys wants to go fuck you over in a big way and you decide to do something about it, you can go off by yourself and the US will sip a beer and watch.
If it's the same level of threat that Iraq was to the US they don't need anybody's help because that threat was nonexistant. Saddam had neither the desire nor the means to harm the US on anything but the propaganda level (if that) because as has been amply demonstrated by Gulf Wars 2 and 3, they'd get reamed if they tried (hell in the last one they got reamed despite NOT actually trying).

#8

Posted: Sat Oct 14, 2006 6:06 pm
by Hotfoot
Narsil wrote:Let me put my full opinion on this situation into perspective for you...

Your country (in this case, the USA) is suffering from massive debts as it is, and is the most debted country in North America.

Then, let's say that American troops are sent out to aid the British in... maybe Ireland?... Which is nothing at all to do with you or your country at the end of the day. Your country joins because Margaret Thatcher or John Major put out a political campaign to make a 'coalition of the willing'. For the next few years, your country is engaged in a war which is very quickly draining your economy and slowly killing your soldiers and reporters in a slow trickle of death. Not all of this is the fault of British friendly fire, only some of it is, most of it is indeed the fault of the IRA... but at the end of the day... you want your soldiers out of there and away from the slow trickle of death.

That's my opinion on Iraq... situations like this just cement my opinion somewhat. Now as for the 'lowered recruiting standards wasn't the problem back then' point that you do actually have:

The lowered recruiting standards, while not being a problem at the moment, are going to make things much, much worse... all the more reason to leave.

Rabid advertising and the film "Highschool Musical" aside, I've got nothing against America, I've just got something against British soldiers and reporters dying pointlessly because of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Not only are you bad at analogies, but it has nothing to do with the thread at all. Show me how the three year old death of a reporter during wartime being the fault of US soldiers warrants the removal of all UK involvement in Iraq, Civilian AND Military RIGHT NOW. Do it, or shut the hell up. America is in serious need of criticism, but howling like a banshee every time something like this comes up is retarded. What's worse is you can't even come up with the right thing to comment on. This is like me posting a story about Christopher Eccleson quitting Doctor Who and demanding that the BBC be given to the private sector.

I'm not saying that the criticisms you're making are wrong per se (well, some are, like the lowered standards), but they have NOTHING TO DO WITH THE STORY YOU'VE POSTED. Would it kill you to keep things coherant?