U.S.: Troops killed reporter

Status
Not open for further replies.
The Pentagon has threatened to fire on the satellite uplink positions of independent journalists in Iraq, according to veteran BBC war correspondent, Kate Adie. In an interview with Irish radio, Ms. Adie said that questioned about the consequences of such potentially fatal actions, a senior Pentagon officer had said: "Who cares.. ..They've been warned."
…
Another guest on the show, war author Phillip Knightley, reported that the Pentagon has also threatened they: "may find it necessary to bomb areas in which war correspondents are attempting to report from the Iraqi side."
…
http://www.gulufuture.com/news/kate_adie030310.htm

…
The move followed a day in which three journalists were killed by US fire in separate attacks in Baghdad, leading to accusations that US forces were targeting the news media.

Reuters cameraman Taras Protsyuk, 35, was killed when an American tank fired a shell directly at the Reuters suite on the 15th floor at the Palestine hotel, where many journalists are staying.

Jose Couso, 37, a cameraman for the Spanish television channel Tele 5, was wounded in the same attack and died later in hospital. Samia Nakhoul, the Gulf bureau chief of Reuters, was also injured, along with a British technician, Paul Pasquale, and an Iraqi photographer, Faleh Kheiber.

Earlier, al-Jazeera cameraman Tarek Ayyoub, a 35-year-old Palestinian who lived in Jordan, was killed when two bombs dropped during a US air raid hit the satellite station's office in the Iraqi capital.

American forces also opened fire on the offices of Abu Dhabi television, whose identity is spelled out in large blue letters on the roof.

All the journalists were killed and injured in daylight at locations known to the Pentagon as media sites. The tank shell that hit the Palestine hotel slammed into the 18-storey building at noon, shaking the tower and spewing rubble and dirt into hotel rooms at least six floors below.
…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,932800,00.html

I was actually between the tank and the hotel, when the round was fired. I was trying to get back from a story, an assignment I'd been on, what I'd put myself on. And the shell with an extraordinary noise swooshed over my head and hit the hotel...bang! Tremendous concussion. White Smoke. And when I got there, two of my colleagues, one from Reuters and one from Spanish Television, both of whom were to die within a few hours, the first one within half an hour, were being brought out in blood-soaked bed-sheeting. And a Lebanese colleague, a woman, Samia, with a piece of metal in her brain. She recovered. She had brain surgery. She's married to the London Financial Times correspondent here in Beirut. She survived. The initial reaction was very interesting because the BBC went on air saying it was an Iraqi rocket-propelled grenade. Someone wanted to frighten the press. Then it emerged, thanks be to God for the attempt to get the truth, that TV3, a French channel, had recorded the tanks' movements and I actually rushed to their Bureau and they showed me the videotape and you saw the American tanks for five minutes beforehand, in complete silence - there was nothing happening - going onto the bridge, moving its turret, and then firing at the hotel. The camera shakes and pieces of plaster and paint fall in front of the camera. Clearly, it's the same shot. Four or five minutes in which nothing is happening. Now I was in between the tank and the hotel and there was complete silence. And when initially the Americans said they knew nothing about it, when it became clear the French had a film, before the Americans realized how long the film was running for prior to the attack, they said that the tank was under persistent sniper and RPG (rocket-propelled grenade) fire which is not true. I would have heard it because I was close to the tank and the hotel and it would have been picked up on the soundtrack, which it wasn't. This statement was made by General Buford Blount, the same 3rd Infantry Division commander who boasted that he'd be using depleted uranium munitions during the war in an interview with Le Monde in March, a month ago. And he then said that there had been sniper fire and after the round was fired by the American tank, the sniper fire had ceased. In other words, the clear implication was that the gunfire had come from the Reuters office, which was a most mendacious, vicious lie by General Blount. General Blount lied in order to cover up the death of journalists. It was interesting that when indeed the Americans actually arrived in central Baghdad within a day, no journalists were raising these issues with the Americans who'd just arrived. They should have done...I did actually. And in fact two days later, I was on the Jumeirah bridge, and climbed onto the second tank and asked the tank commander whether he fired at the journalists and he said "I don't know anything about that, sir. I'm new here." Which he may well have been. How do I know if he was there before or not? But that tank round was fired deliberately at the hotel and General Blount's counterfeit - the commander of the 3rd Infantry Division - was a lie. A total lie. And it was a grotesque lie against my colleagues. Samia Mahul had a piece of metal in her brain, A young woman who's most bravely reported the Lebanese civil war. And against the Ukrainian cameraman for Reuters and against the Spanish cameraman in the room upstairs. It was a most disgusting lie. And as a journalist, I have to say that. And General Blount has not apologized for it. So far he has gotten away with his lie. I'm sorry to say.
http://www.webactive.com/pacifica/demnow/dn20030422.html

The White House is vowing a strong retaliatory response after the BBC aired live video of President Bush getting his hair coiffed in the Oval Office as he squirmed in his chair and practiced on the teleprompter minutes before Wednesday night's speech announcing the launch of military operations against Saddam Hussein.
…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A1027-2003Mar20.html
 
Cosmoline, go walk some of those hell hole beats....bet it feels a lot like combat."

In combat, there is an enemy you must be prepared to kill instantly. On sight, even. Are you saying LEO's walk around with the same mindset? See an armed person--shoot to kill? I find that disturbing, though it would explain the situation in some of those hell hole beats you're talking about.
 
In combat, there is an enemy you must be prepared to kill instantly. On sight, even. Are you saying LEO's walk around with the same mindset? See an armed person--shoot to kill? I find that disturbing, though it would explain the situation in some of those hell hole beats you're talking about.
There is more than one type of combat zone. Viet Nam, Afgan, Iraq, Balkins, Somolia, Bosnia, (any peace keeping mission), L.I.C. (Low Intensity Conflict). Combat doesn't go on 100% of the time, but it is very real and always very close, ready to break out at you in a moments notice.
 
Whether you're talking about low intensity or high intensity combat, there should be no comparison between patrolling an occupied foreign territory and policing an American neighborhood--even a bad neighborhood.

The LEO's are there to enforce laws, not to engage in combat with anyone. Just like many other professions, they may encounter dangers going about their work and they should certainly have a right to be armed and to defend themselves. But I reject this "cops vs. XXXX" mindset implied by the assertion that "it's a war out there." A war on whom? Who are they trying to conquer? Who are they trying to kill off? It's a very dangerous analogy, though I don't deny many LEO's have apparently taken it to heart--esp. in neighborhoods where they don't live, populated by people who don't look or talk like they do.
 
A war on whom? Who are they trying to conquer? Who are they trying to kill off? It's a very dangerous analogy
I think you have it backwards. You as a citizen can walk down a certain street on your merry way. Joe Cop walks down that same street and gets shot just because he's a cop, not because he's Joe. That's what I'm talking about. Flip your statement over, look at it that way.
 
I know that cops are getting targeted and killed by well armed Taliban troops operating in concert in Afghanistan. I know of no similar situation in the US, certainly none that would warrant the police going to war against the people they're supposedly protecting. If the LEO's in a neighborhood view every as a potential cop killer, I'd say there are some major problems with policing.

Thus, I would view a police officer shooting a cameraman in a bad part of NYC VERY differently than a US soldier in Iraq shooting a cameraman in a bad part of Iraq.
 
In many large cities there are areas that cops are told they cannot go into alone. Some have policies to that effect. Why do you think that is? Because they are a target just for the uniform they wear.
 
or a LAWS rocket launcher


<sigh> It's a LAW, not a LAWS. Light Antitank Weapon.

Don't get your weapons education from Dirty Harry.

--------------------------------

Because they are a target just for the uniform they wear.

Agreed, TheeBadOne, but there is a huge difference between an actual war zone (like Afganistan or Iraq) and the streets of America. Like it or not, REAL DANGER LEVEL OR NOT, the cops do not have the right to respond in the same manner as do military troops in a hostile country.
 
Good! I suspect we're in substantial agreement. Sometimes these things get get too heated for clear communicatiion.
 
>Joe Cop walks down that same street and gets shot just because he's a cop, not because he's Joe.

Statistically, Joe Cop is a lot safer than Abu convenience-store clerk. Police need to be a little realistic; their jobs aren't nearly as dangerous as the guy's doing house-to-house searches in Iraq. (Although I think the convenience-store guys are getting pretty close, in Dallas...)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top