Coroner finds US troops guilty of killing journalist - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

daisym · #1 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

After having seen the war on Arab television in 2003, it doesn't surprise me that something like this is coming out now.

It has long been stated that US troops went in there unprepared and without an adequate understanding of the environment they were going in to, which is why incidents such as these occur.

This is more a reflection on the way the US conducted the war, than on the troops ... or maybe not.

I think there is something seriously wrong with events like this occurring - but its nothing to what the Iraqis suffered at the hands of the invaders.

Quote:

US troops unlawfully killed UK journalist, coroner finds

A British inquest has ruled one of Britain's most experienced journalists was unlawfully killed by US soldiers in Iraq, prompting calls for the perpetrators to be tried for war crimes.

Veteran war correspondent Terry Lloyd, 50, who worked for British television company ITN, was killed in March 2003 in southern Iraq as he reported from the front line during the first few days of the US-led invasion.

"He was fired on by American soldiers as a minibus carried wounded people away," Coroner Andrew Walker said at the conclusion of the inquest, which US soldiers declined to attend.

"I have no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire on the minibus."

Mr Walker says he intends to write to the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions in an effort to bring those responsible for Lloyd's death before a British court.

Louis Charalambous, the Lloyd family's lawyer, says those responsible for his death should be brought to trial, for what he termed "a very serious war crime."

"It was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act," he added.

He says the unlawful killing verdict had been "inescapable" and has come about because "US forces appear to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys."

Mr Charalambous says the Marines who fired on Lloyd, and their superiors, should stand trial for murder - a sentiment echoed by Lloyd's employers.

David Mannion, the company's editor-in-chief, says ITN will support any moves to bring those "responsible for Terry's death to account before a court of law."

Lloyd, who had reported from Iraq, Cambodia, Bosnia and Kosovo during his award-winning career, was initially wounded in the stomach.

He was then shot in the head by US troops after he had been picked up and put in an Iraqi minibus, the court heard.

His translator, Hussein Othman, was also killed while French cameraman Fred Nerac, is still missing believed dead.

The other cameraman, Daniel Demoustier, was the only one to survive.

-Reuters

http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems...0/s1764729.htm

Ash · #2 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

If this proves to be the truth, then the men responsible should be held responsible.

daisym · #3 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

here's the bbc report:

it appears that the vehicle in which Lloyd (and perhaps the others) was killed was a civilian vehicle, driving AWAY from the troops.

how can this be justified?

Quote:

US forces killed ITN man in Iraq

A coroner has recorded a verdict of unlawful killing on ITN reporter Terry Lloyd, who was shot dead by US forces in southern Iraq in March 2003.

An inquest heard Mr Lloyd was killed by a US bullet near Basra. His interpreter died and his cameraman is missing.

The inquest heard Mr Lloyd, 50 and originally from Derby, was hit while in a makeshift ambulance, having already been hurt in American-Iraqi crossfire.

The Pentagon denied ever targeting non-combatants, including journalists.

The coroner is to ask the attorney general to consider pressing charges.

Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he would also be writing to the director of public prosecutions asking for him to investigate the possibility of bringing charges.

'War crime'

Mr Lloyd's Lebanese interpreter, Hussein Osman, was also killed and French cameraman Fred Nerac is still officially classed as missing, presumed dead. Belgian cameraman Daniel Demoustier was the ITN crew's only survivor.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) said Mr Lloyd's killing was a "war crime" and this was echoed by Mr Lloyd's widow, Lyn.

In a statement she said: "This was a very serious war crime, how else can firing on a vehicle in these circumstances be interpreted?

"This was not a friendly fire incident or a crossfire incident, it was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act, particularly as it came many minutes after the initial exchange.

"US forces appear to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger happy cowboys in an area where civilians were moving around."

A spokesman for the US Department of Defense said: "An investigation into the circumstances surrounding the incident was completed in May 2003.

"The investigation was limited to the engagement of the vehicle Mr Lloyd was traveling in. The investigation determined that US forces followed the applicable Rules of Engagement

'We do not target non-combatants'

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

"It has been an unfortunate reality that journalists have died in Iraq. Combat operations are inherently dangerous and we do not take lightly our responsibilities in the conduct of these operations. We do not, nor would we ever, deliberately target a non-combatant civilian or journalist."

His daughter Chelsey said: "The killing of my father would seem to amount to murder, which is deeply shocking."

Mr Lloyd was covering the British and American invasion of Iraq as a "unilateral" journalist, rather than those "embedded" with UK or US forces, who were subject to military censorship.

He and his three colleagues were caught up in a firefight between US and Iraqi forces near the Shatt Al Basra Bridge on 22 March 2003.

After an eight-day inquest Mr Walker cleared ITN of any blame for Mr Lloyd's death and praised him and his team for their "professionalism and dedication".

He said it was his view the American tanks had been first to open fire on the ITN crew's two vehicles.

He added Mr Lloyd would probably have survived the first bullet wound he received, but was killed as he travelled away in a makeshift ambulance.

Mr Walker said it "presented no threat to American forces" since it was a civilian minibus and was facing away from the US tanks.

"I have no doubt it was the fact that the vehicle stopped to pick up survivors that prompted the Americans to fire on that vehicle," he said.

ITN's editor in chief David Mannion said: "I would also like to say something that I know Terry would have wished me to say.

"Independent, unilateral reporting, free from official strictures, is crucial; not simply to us as journalists but to the role we play in a free and democratic society."

Mr Nerac's widow Fabienne said she would continue her "lonely vigil" to find out what happened to her husband.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6046950.stm

Marcus1124 · #4 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Here's a question, how does a Coroner establish that someone was "unlawfully" killed? His declaration that "I have no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire on the minibus." is a legal conclusion for which his medical training hardly gives him any special insight into.

It's like the left lapping up every the drivel of every "professor" who says anything they like to hear, from global weather patterns to constitutional law, even if it is from a professor of mideaval poetry!

Rakkasan · #5 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

actually on the ground its a big change than in the safe cubicle you two seem to live in

during this time period insurgents had just started the drive ANYTHING up or past soldiers and blowthemselves up technique of fighting

thus a minibus full of people fleeing or coming towards them would be a target

you need to see outside on the box on this one i know its easier to just say AMERICAN SOLDIERS SUCK

but in the end the tactics of the enemy and the way they prosecuted the war themselves lended to collateral damage, not VENGEFUL TRIGGER HAPPY SOLDIERS. I challenge either of you to kit up and stand a day on the corner of any street in iraq post regime fall in 03-05 and see if you dont DEFEND YOURSELF

give me a break even for you daisy this is pretty low

Imperator · #6 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

This is all just a screech from a partisan.

"I have no doubt it was an unlawful act of fire on the minibus."
So he was there and can attest to the fact that the troops with malice and fore thought opened fire on this van?

"He was fired on by American soldiers as a minibus carried wounded people away," Coroner Andrew Walker said at the conclusion of the inquest, which US soldiers declined to attend.

Why should the soldiers attend? Well, I can tell you; An inquest is an examination INTO the death, before hand there are no facts that would ascribe the action as unlawful, as the results of the Inquest have not been made yet, so in effect, this author is using a slimy semantic trick to paint the troops that had been there as guilty before the facts where in. Please.

"It was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act," he added.

In his “opinion”, again, looking at this from afar, it may be easy to take this tack, but doesn’t mean he is right.

He says the unlawful killing verdict had been "inescapable" and has come about because "US forces appear to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger-happy cowboys."

Appear hummmm appear….yes that’s a “maybe” or “might have” , and as far as acting like trigger “happy cowboys”, that’s a judgment call, and unless he was there he cannot know. Just another article built on supposition.

He was then shot in the head by US troops after he had been picked up and put in an Iraqi minibus, the court heard.

Can we have a few more facts please? Like the range and circumstances at which the firing took place, getting hit in the head, and leaving these facts out is misleading, and you don’t have to be point blank to get hit in the head, if a number of troops opened fire from 50 yards he could have been hit in the head as well. Where are the facts regards the actual event? This is half baked. If you are going to write an article like this, add some meat to the potatoes. This describes nothing regards the actual event. In a word, sloppy and overly emotional.

Rakkasan · #7 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by daisym

here's the bbc report:

it appears that the vehicle in which Lloyd (and perhaps the others) was killed was a civilian vehicle, driving AWAY from the troops.

how can this be justified?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6046950.stm

due to the tactics of the people you support in this war(the enemy)

this was a legal target during that time, any vehicle fleeing from soldiers was possibly soldiers or insurgents , and i am sure its more than just some soldiers looking over yonder seeing some iraqis and going "shit lets kill some folks jeb" like you want it to be.............

daisym · #8 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

grow up Marcus. How do you think a coroner determines if someone is murdered?

A coronial inquiry looks at all the evidence before coming to a finding. That will include the circumstances leading up to the death.

If you want to run away and hide behind 'well its only lefties who would think that US troops UNLAWFULLY killed anyone,' then you have serious credibility problems.

MattLarson · #9 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Similarly, an inquest that draws a conclusion based on only one side of the story has credibility problems......

It is entirely within the scope of a medical examiner's inquest to determine the cause and manner of death.

So for Dr. Walker to say the cause was GSW to the head, and the manner homicide is entirely proper.

For him to draw a conclusion that the homicide was lawful or unlawful is well outside the scope of a medical inquest.

That kind of a conclusion is only properly drawn following a trial, where both sides are represented.

Matt

Marcus1124 · #10 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

daisym
grow up Marcus. How do you think a coroner determines if someone is murdered?

A coronial inquiry looks at all the evidence before coming to a finding. That will include the circumstances leading up to the death.

If you want to run away and hide behind 'well its only lefties who would think that US troops UNLAWFULLY killed anyone,' then you have serious credibility problems.

I am specifically referring to the CORONER's unqualified conclusion. And no, coroners can only determine HOW someone was killed. If I shoot you in the head, the coroner can determine that, the coroner CANNOT determine if it was an "unlawful act", if you were breaking into my house with a gun, it would most certainly NOT be an unlawful act. Such LEGAL distinctions are outside the expertise of a medical coroner.

Imperator · #11 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

I am specifically referring to the CORONER's unqualified conclusion. And no, coroners can only determine HOW someone was killed. If I shoot you in the head, the coroner can determine that, the coroner CANNOT determine if it was an "unlawful act", if you were breaking into my house with a gun, it would most certainly NOT be an unlawful act. Such LEGAL distinctions are outside the expertise of a medical coroner.

well said Marcus.

how can you invite soldiers to an Inquest? the results of an inquest create the situation, for further investigation, not the other way round. His use of langauge as I said is a chap trick to assign blame before evidence of such has been found.

daisym · #12 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

actually on the ground its a big change than in the safe cubicle you two seem to live in

during this time period insurgents had just started the drive ANYTHING up or past soldiers and blowthemselves up technique of fighting

thus a minibus full of people fleeing or coming towards them would be a target

you need to see outside on the box on this one i know its easier to just say AMERICAN SOLDIERS SUCK

but in the end the tactics of the enemy and the way they prosecuted the war themselves lended to collateral damage, not VENGEFUL TRIGGER HAPPY SOLDIERS. I challenge either of you to kit up and stand a day on the corner of any street in iraq post regime fall in 03-05 and see if you dont DEFEND YOURSELF

give me a break even for you daisy this is pretty low

So, reporting what the coroner in Britain has found is going pretty low is it Rakk?

Are you really so brainwashed? such a victim of propaganda?

Look mate, you can deny things as much as you want, but the rest of the world is NOT blind to what was and is happening in Iraq.

Pretending your guys are perfect doesn't make them innocent of war crimes.

I saw enough of the Iraq war Rakk, and it was not pretty.

There was plenty of evidence that a significant no of US troops were little better than poorly trained thugs. I and millions of people in the Arab world saw plenty of evidence of it.

We know that journalists were killed, and we know that troops killed unarmed Iraqis who were not any threat, and who were obviously not any threat.

I agree that poorly trained troops out of their depth are jumpy and likely to make mistakes, and that is why those responsible for putting these people in this position are at least as culpable as those who were on the ground.

You are in denial and living in your fantasy world, but outside the US it is obvious that the fantasy is unravelling.

Lungfish · #13 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

The military is trained to kill people. The army is intended for use in conventional warfare, when you're supposed to kill as many of the bad guy as possible. There's a good reason why we don't allow the military to be used as a police force in the US and haven't since the civil war.
We've beaten the generals that remained loyal to Saddam, and we invaded the hell out of the place. We won the war, and now we are dealing with the aftermath. The number one thing people in Iraq want is for US troops to leave. Reconstruction ranks second because it's believed US presence is not helping.
Though I also await more information about the shooting of a fleeing minibus that happened to have wounded aboard, I still think this is a good example, regardless of the circumstances, of why we should let our people come home.

Ash · #14 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

actually on the ground its a big change than in the safe cubicle you two seem to live in

Did you even read what I wrote? Here it is again, in slightly different terms:

If, and I mean if it is proven that a murder was committed, then those who committed it should be held responsible.

Now, do you agree, or do you believe in anarchy?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

you need to see outside on the box on this one i know its easier to just say AMERICAN SOLDIERS SUCK

I never said, nor implied any such thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rakkasan

I challenge either of you to kit up and stand a day on the corner of any street in iraq post regime fall in 03-05 and see if you dont DEFEND YOURSELF

Unfortunately, my eye is bad and I was unable to enlist when I tried...

Maybe you should be a little less presumptuous and take some time to actually read what people are actually saying before you start spewing your rhetorical bullshit.

WarOnIgnorance · #15 (**permalink**) 10-13-2006

Quote:

Originally Posted by Marcus1124

I am specifically referring to the CORONER's unqualified conclusion. And no, coroners can only determine HOW someone was killed. If I shoot you in the head, the coroner can determine that, the coroner CANNOT determine if it was an "unlawful act", if you were breaking into my house with a gun, it would most certainly NOT be an unlawful act. Such LEGAL distinctions are outside the expertise of a medical coroner.

In the UK, the Department for Constitutional Affairs reformed the coroner and death certification system recently (from 2003 throughout the present).
One of the reforms was that coroners became fully qualified in legal matters :

Quote:

Originally Posted by DCA

The government drew on recommendations from the fundamental review of coroner and death certification systems and the third report of the Shipman Inquiry to produce the position paper "Reforming the coroner and death certification service". The paper proposes a system with oversight of all deaths based around full time independent coroners with legal qualifications who will be closely supported by appropriate medical expertise. It also proposes tightening up the death certification process by increasing medical scrutiny in the system.

The British Coroner is now a legal profession, supported by medical expertise.

More here:
http://www.dca.gov.uk/corbur/coron03.htm#1
Alas, the Bill itself is not downloadable for free (7.50 £)

Bookmarks
Digg	del.icio.us	StumbleUpon	Google

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode