Coroner: U.S. killed British TV reporter

[Craig234]

this guy stuck his neck out and then had it chopped off during a firefight... wrong place. wrong time. sad? yes. But one of the primary aspects of any "murder" is motive. What exactly was the motive here? Do you honestly think that US soldiers go around shooting anything they want to? Do you honestly believe that this reporter was deliberately targeted?

First, Palehorse, wrongful killing does not always involve intent - it can involve negligence, recklessness, etc.

Second, I don't see anyone saying that in general the soldiers go around shooting anything they want to; and I don't see anyone saying that the reporter was deliberately targetted.

The difference here between the right-wingers and left-wingers is that the left-wingers want a quality investigation to find out the truth - did the troops act within the allowable range of behavior in their actions, or did they commit a crime? The right wants to *assume* all of the facts in favor of the soldiers and to prevent any trial as much as possible.

In doing so, they are supporting a system with almost no accountability, where wrongdoing can easily occur and go uncaught and unpunished. They are supporting war crimes by doing so. Have you read the evidence the English court based its ruling on to see if it's different than your assumptions that this was just an innocent accident without any crime?

 

[palehorse]

I have no problem with "a quality investigation to find out the truth," as long as it does not hinder the mission. You can investigate until your heart is content, just dont do it with the intent to find guilt where none exists... often times, the media creates a frenzy of negativity around such investigations that forever taint the soldiers involved.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: palehorse74
this guy stuck his neck out and then had it chopped off during a firefight... wrong place. wrong time. sad? yes. But one of the primary aspects of any "murder" is motive. What exactly was the motive here? Do you honestly think that US soldiers go around shooting anything they want to? Do you honestly believe that this reporter was deliberately targeted?

some of you are just plain goofy...

And some just pick parts of a report that fit their position and assume the balance is non existent.

The question as far as I can tell is simply one in which the bullet that hit the reporter and killed him entered the vehicle (apparently) after having been fired from a weapon in the hands off or under the control of someone thus far identified as American Military. And, why did the person fire the round at the vehicle (assuming that did occur)? And, was that act in keeping with the rules of engagement (apparently it was according to US military sources)?
So why does an Inquest find itself at odds with the US Military... It appears someone is not telling the truth or the evidence is being incorrectly interpreted by someone ...

 

[Craig234]

I have no problem with "a quality investigation to find out the truth," as long as it does not hinder the mission. You can investigate until your heart is content, just dont do it with the intent to find guilt where none exists... often times, the media creates a frenzy of negativity around such investigations that forever taint the soldiers involved.

We're not talking abou tthe media, we're talking about England's legal system.

Look, I'm not convinced the guy is guilty yet; the report itself says that the shots could have come from a helicoptor which might not have been able to see the markings, and so more investigation is needed.

What I'm objecting to now is the US's refusal to cooperate with the investigation - refusing to allow witnesses to testify, apparently destroying video evidence - and the people on the right rushing to say that the troops absolutely did nothing wrong and the US is right to refuse to cooperate with any investigation by England.

We all want the same thing - the US to be a moral nation, understanding that there will be some unavoidable casualties.

The difference is that I am demanding that we actually do the things to be that moral nation - which involve transparency over secrecy and coverup, effective investigations instead of inadequate ones, and so on - while so many on the right simply want to claim the US is that moral nation and actively prevent the truth from coming out to see if it is.

You say you have no problem with "a quality investigation to find out the truth", so I'll take that as your agreeing with my criticism of the US refusal to participate in the investigation. I'm glad to see that, and we're far more in agrement if it's the case.

 

[Orignal Earl]

Journalists killed in Iraq - 85
Journalists killed in Vietnam (1955-1975) - 66 or 71

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Journalists killed in Iraq - 85
Journalists killed in Vietnam (1955-1975) - 66 or 71

what's the point of that statistic? Why dont you give a total # of journalists IN those countries to compare it to. I have no idea what that total is, but I'm guessing there is at least a 1000 to 1 ratio... give us a % of the total # of journalists in each country who have been killed.

thanks ahead of time!

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Journalists killed in Iraq - 85
Journalists killed in Vietnam (1955-1975) - 66 or 71

what's the point of that statistic? Why dont you give a total # of journalists IN those countries to compare it to. I have no idea what that total is, but I'm guessing there is at least a 1000 to 1 ratio... give us a % of the total # of journalists in each country who have been killed.

thanks ahead of time!

Are you trying to say there is more journalists in Iraq then there was in Vietnam?
I remember watching the war happen every day back then (even here in Canada) I have seen very little actual footage of Iraq

Heres where I got the numbers, you do the math
Text

 

[Craig234]

On the topic of the government making it easier for war crimes to be committed without any accountability, here's a short clip of how they used contracters at Abu Ghraib who were much harder to prosecute - and even moreso because they played games by running the contracts through the Department of the Interior.

(May need a Salon day pass to view).

Again people can choose whether to support morality and oppose these practices, or whether to let the governement commit crimes with no real oversite.
Video link

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Another side-affect, if you will, of war, is rape of women and girls, beatings and killings of the local populace, thievery and all manner of illegal activities. Are those actions to be forgiven as well? Following the logic of the Bush supporters in here, that would seem to be the case. Anything goes I guess. Shoot the journalists! :disgust:

No, it isn't. The logic is you are in a war zone. You take an inherent risk by putting yourself in the middle of the action. So don't be bitchin' when you get shot.

Amen

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: EXman

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: International Machine Consortium
Another side-affect, if you will, of war, is rape of women and girls, beatings and killings of the local populace, thievery and all manner of illegal activities. Are those actions to be forgiven as well? Following the logic of the Bush supporters in here, that would seem to be the case. Anything goes I guess. Shoot the journalists! :disgust:

No, it isn't. The logic is you are in a war zone. You take an inherent risk by putting yourself in the middle of the action. So don't be bitchin' when you get shot.

Amen

You are pushing a view that is not relative to the thread's point... A CRIME is alleged to have been committed and it don't much matter where or under what circumstances it occurred, if it occurred!!
Absent a CRIME being alleged then your view would be relative to how someone may have been involved in an accidental collateral shooting and etc..

You cannot just dismiss CRIME cuz you don't feel a crime can be committed in war.. and if that is the case ... RUN quick like a bunny and free Saddam cuz them folks he is charged with killing.. well guess they shouldn't have been there to start with.. jeeze.. right there where he was shooting his gas bombs..

 

[Rainsford]

Man this black-and-white bullshit from the righties gets old fast. Yes, it's war zone, and sometimes deaths in a war zone are unavoidable accidents. But that doesn't mean EVERY civilian or non-combatant death is an accident that just happens, being a soldier does not entitle you to simply do whatever the hell you want and use "sh!t happens" as a defense. Of course we don't know exactly what happened hear, perhaps there was no wrongdoing at all, but even in a war zone there are rules...that's what seperates us from terrorists.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is what I said to, you are in a war zone, unfortunately shite happens.

But this is also where we are going with our wars. I suspect in the future we will have lawyers attached to units to read our enemies their rights as we arrest them for a crime and extend them our consitutional protections. After that we will have thousands of circus trials to convict our enemy in our civilian courts.

Yes, and as more wars in the future are police actions and occupations of civilian areas, it's even more important that our war fighting mentality evolves beyond "shoot anything that moves".

 

[Genx87]

I linked a fair and accurate article tongue in cheek from an actual left-wing site, and he fails to get it even after being told.

You linked that and promoted it as a legit site. It wasnt until we all pointed out it was a paper tied to the hip of the United States Communist party did you come back with your lame attempt at saying it was toungue in cheek.

Everybody in that thread knows you pwned yourself bigtime by linking that garbage and trying to pawn it off as non propaganda.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is what I said to, you are in a war zone, unfortunately shite happens.

But this is also where we are going with our wars. I suspect in the future we will have lawyers attached to units to read our enemies their rights as we arrest them for a crime and extend them our consitutional protections. After that we will have thousands of circus trials to convict our enemy in our civilian courts.

Yes, and as more wars in the future are police actions and occupations of civilian areas, it's even more important that our war fighting mentality evolves beyond "shoot anything that moves".

Easier said than done. When the bullets are flying back and forth, i think our troops should do what they need to do in order to get out of the mission alive. Unfortunately that may mean people get caught in the crossfire. It is an unfortunate side effect of war.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: Genx87
This is what I said to, you are in a war zone, unfortunately shite happens.

But this is also where we are going with our wars. I suspect in the future we will have lawyers attached to units to read our enemies their rights as we arrest them for a crime and extend them our consitutional protections. After that we will have thousands of circus trials to convict our enemy in our civilian courts.

Yes, and as more wars in the future are police actions and occupations of civilian areas, it's even more important that our war fighting mentality evolves beyond "shoot anything that moves".

Easier said than done. When the bullets are flying back and forth, i think our troops should do what they need to do in order to get out of the mission alive. Unfortunately that may mean people get caught in the crossfire. It is an unfortunate side effect of war.

Unfortunately that may often be the case, but that doesn't mean we can't make an attempt to avoid it when possible. I see no reason we can't have a reasonable system where there is broad leeway for actions taken in the heat of battle while still putting some responsibility on the soldier to pay attention to what he's doing. And as much as I hate to say it, the primary purpose of military missions is not just to keep the soldiers safe...if we wanted them to be as safe as possible, they'd be sitting at their base stateside. They are there to get the mission accomplished, and when it comes to police actions and occupations, itchy trigger fingers might make that mission a lot more difficult.

 

[Craig234]

You linked that and promoted it as a legit site. It wasnt until we all pointed out it was a paper tied to the hip of the United States Communist party did you come back with your lame attempt at saying it was toungue in cheek.

Everybody in that thread knows you pwned yourself bigtime by linking that garbage and trying to pawn it off as non propaganda.

You are making a fool of yourself, genx.

The article was fair. The site that posted it was irrelevant - and it tweaks you for it to be called 'fair' since it's far left. You have shown *nothing* about the article - or the site for that matter - to be unfair/inaccurate, and yet you post your hot air as if you had.

Go prove the article wrong, and you will have 'won' a point. You can't, it's becoming clearer and clearer, so we'll get free heating courtesy of your hot air.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Craig234

You linked that and promoted it as a legit site. It wasnt until we all pointed out it was a paper tied to the hip of the United States Communist party did you come back with your lame attempt at saying it was toungue in cheek.

Everybody in that thread knows you pwned yourself bigtime by linking that garbage and trying to pawn it off as non propaganda.

You are making a fool of yourself, genx.

The article was fair. The site that posted it was irrelevant - and it tweaks you for it to be called 'fair' since it's far left. You have shown *nothing* about the article - or the site for that matter - to be unfair/inaccurate, and yet you post your hot air as if you had.

Go prove the article wrong, and you will have 'won' a point. You can't, it's becoming clearer and clearer, so we'll get free heating courtesy of your hot air.

Uh a site dedicated to, ahem, partisan coverage of the communist party of america will, I am sure write a fair and balanced, unbiased article about Chavez.

You really cant make this stuff up how far you have stuck your head in the sand.
They admit right in their mission statement to be biased and you are telling us the article they wrote is "fair" lmao.

 

[JEDIYoda]

war is war!!

 

[Orignal Earl]

Originally posted by: JEDIYoda
war is war!!

And then the next day the same people will try to convince me its not a war zone, all is good except that internet dating is ruining the Muslim way of life

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Orignal Earl
Journalists killed in Iraq - 85
Journalists killed in Vietnam (1955-1975) - 66 or 71

what's the point of that statistic? Why dont you give a total # of journalists IN those countries to compare it to. I have no idea what that total is, but I'm guessing there is at least a 1000 to 1 ratio... give us a % of the total # of journalists in each country who have been killed.

thanks ahead of time!

Are you trying to say there is more journalists in Iraq then there was in Vietnam?
I remember watching the war happen every day back then (even here in Canada) I have seen very little actual footage of Iraq

Heres where I got the numbers, you do the math
Text

you are going to sit there with a straight face and state that you believe that there were just as many journalists in Vietnam as there are and have been in Iraq? nevermind then, you are summarily dismissed for being ridiculous...

 

[Atheus]

I don't think people have a problem with the fact they were killed in a war zone - if they had been hiding out in a building or something which was hit by a stray shell, well, you take the risk don't you.

What people here have a problem with is they were quite likely killed on purpose. In the report I saw, the car was clearly marked "TV", yet they shot it anyway. Would this have happened to an American TV crew? I think not. It seems there is a serious amount of hate for the British and Europeans in general in the US.

It's just like the 'friendly fire' thing - these things can not be entirely accidental, there have been 32 attcks by the Americans on the British just last year. Check this out:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-1517327,00.html

From the article:

A British officer in Basra said: ?The Americans can be pretty pumped-up. Sometimes they fire in broad daylight when we are travelling at two miles per hour, shouting that we are British out of the window and waving the Union Jack. If they shoot, our drill is to slam on the brakes and race in the opposite direction.?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't think people have a problem with the fact they were killed in a war zone - if they had been hiding out in a building or something which was hit by a stray shell, well, you take the risk don't you.

What people here have a problem with is they were quite likely killed on purpose. In the report I saw, the car was clearly marked "TV", yet they shot it anyway. Would this have happened to an American TV crew? I think not. It seems there is a serious amount of hate for the British and Europeans in general in the US.

uhh, we have no hate for the British.. at least, I've never seen any. That said, the article states that they were driven off in an unmarked minvan, NOT one with "TV" on the side.

How many of you have ever been on a battlefield? It's not like it is in the movies... the bullets are not coreographed, and the enemy these days could be anyone, in any direction.

And since we are all nice people and always choose to give soldiers the benefit of the doubt until evidence proves otherwise, we will all agree that the reporter was accidental collateral damage, right?

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't think people have a problem with the fact they were killed in a war zone - if they had been hiding out in a building or something which was hit by a stray shell, well, you take the risk don't you.

What people here have a problem with is they were quite likely killed on purpose. In the report I saw, the car was clearly marked "TV", yet they shot it anyway. Would this have happened to an American TV crew? I think not. It seems there is a serious amount of hate for the British and Europeans in general in the US.

uhh, we have no hate for the British.. at least, I've never seen any.

Not all of you, I've met some very kind decent Americans, it's just some of you. American news channels, blogs, and forums are full of anti-European crap.

The thing is, there are frequent attacks on the British by American forces, but I cannot find an incident of the reverse happening. Statisticly, if no one was shooting on purpose, there would have been an equal number of deaths on both sides right?

Now, I'm not denying there's anti-Americanism here - because there definately is - but it's not in the serious media. Fox news for example never ceases to amaze me. I saw a bit on Fox once which said that Britain is un-free (I believe the word fascist was mentioned too) because America has a bill of rights, completely ignoring the fact that Britain has a bill of rights that predates the American one by over 100 years. Why would they do that?

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't think people have a problem with the fact they were killed in a war zone - if they had been hiding out in a building or something which was hit by a stray shell, well, you take the risk don't you.

What people here have a problem with is they were quite likely killed on purpose. In the report I saw, the car was clearly marked "TV", yet they shot it anyway. Would this have happened to an American TV crew? I think not. It seems there is a serious amount of hate for the British and Europeans in general in the US.

uhh, we have no hate for the British.. at least, I've never seen any.

Not all of you, I've met some very kind decent Americans, it's just some of you. American news channels, blogs, and forums are full of anti-European crap.

Now, I'm not denying there's anti-Americanism here - because there definately is - but it's not in the serious media. Fox news for example never ceases to amaze me. I saw a bit on Fox once which said that Britain is un-free (I believe the word fascist was mentioned too) because America has a bill of rights, completely ignoring the fact that Britain has a bill of rights that predates the American one by over 100 years. Why would they do that?

I believe that the UK does have fewer freedoms than Americans. (handguns for example). that said, I have never heard anyone be anything but thankful for the allegiance England has showed the US throughout the last two centuries. trust me, we do count the UK as one of our only real allies... now, the same cannot be said for the rest of Europe. The rest of Europe often turns their collective back on the UK and America both.

Statisticly, if no one was shooting on purpose, there would have been an equal number of deaths on both sides right?

that right there is an ouright falicy. Quite often the US enters a fight and leaves unscathed while leaving the enemy in tattered ruins. This is due to superior equipment, preperations, and training. There are hardly any engagements that end with an equal number of casualties on both sides. I don't know what would make you think otherwise. Hell, in Afghanistan alone, we've killed hundreds for every soldier we've lost! the same is true for all of the major engagements in Iraq.

 

[Atheus]

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Atheus

Originally posted by: palehorse74

Originally posted by: Atheus
I don't think people have a problem with the fact they were killed in a war zone - if they had been hiding out in a building or something which was hit by a stray shell, well, you take the risk don't you.

What people here have a problem with is they were quite likely killed on purpose. In the report I saw, the car was clearly marked "TV", yet they shot it anyway. Would this have happened to an American TV crew? I think not. It seems there is a serious amount of hate for the British and Europeans in general in the US.

uhh, we have no hate for the British.. at least, I've never seen any.

Not all of you, I've met some very kind decent Americans, it's just some of you. American news channels, blogs, and forums are full of anti-European crap.

Now, I'm not denying there's anti-Americanism here - because there definately is - but it's not in the serious media. Fox news for example never ceases to amaze me. I saw a bit on Fox once which said that Britain is un-free (I believe the word fascist was mentioned too) because America has a bill of rights, completely ignoring the fact that Britain has a bill of rights that predates the American one by over 100 years. Why would they do that?

I believe that the UK does have fewer freedoms than Americans. (handguns for example).

We don't want your gun laws. If we did, we would vote them in - that is freedom.

that said, I have never heard anyone be anything but thankful for the allegiance England has showed the US throughout the last two centuries. trust me, we do count the UK as one of our only real allies... now, the same cannot be said for the rest of Europe. The rest of Europe often turns their collective back on the UK and America both.

Not participating in Iraq may heve been disloyal, but it may also have been the morally correct thing to do. Time will tell. It's not a cause for hate anyway. Besides, some other European countries like Italy did support Bush, it's just their military is nothing compared to Britain and France, so those two got all the attention.

Statisticly, if no one was shooting on purpose, there would have been an equal number of deaths on both sides right?

that right there is an ouright falicy. Quite often the US enters a fight and leaves unscathed while leaving the enemy in tattered ruins. This is due to superior equipment, preperations, and training. There are hardly any engagements that end with an equal number of casualties on both sides. I don't know what would make you think otherwise. Hell, in Afghanistan alone, we've killed hundreds for every soldier we've lost! the same is true for all of the major engagements in Iraq.

I will assume you did not in fact read my post, and are confusing the friendly fire incidents I'm talking about with actual battles against the enemy... if not however...

You are not that much better equipped and trained than us, in fact, British Marines and special forces training was the basis for training the first American units of the same ilk. The reason the British are being killed by the Americans, but the Americans are not being killed by the British, is that the Americans are shooting at the British, not the other way round.