• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Coroner: U.S. killed British TV reporter

UDT89

Diamond Member
and if you dont want to get your ass killed you should just stay out of the warzone. not only do you want our troops to fight the enemy, but you want them to second guess their instincts? give me a break.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061013/ap_on_re_eu/britain_reporter_inquest

OXFORD, England - A coroner ruled Friday that U.S. forces unlawfully killed a British television journalist in the opening days of the Iraq war.


Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he would ask the attorney general to take steps to bring to justice those responsible for the death of Terry Lloyd, 50, a veteran reporter for the British television network ITN.

Witnesses testified during the weeklong inquest that Lloyd ? who was driving with fellow ITN reporters from Kuwait toward Basra, Iraq ? was shot in the back 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 that ITN's pair of four-wheel drive vehicles were overtaken by a truck carrying Iraqi forces and that gunfire erupted.

"The hell broke loose completely. I was absolutely sure I was going to die," Demoustier told the inquest. Driving blindly in smoke, Demoustier said he realized the passenger door was open and Lloyd was gone.

Demoustier, a Belgian, said he jumped from his 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 that they resumed firing at the clearly marked ITN vehicles.

Demoustier said he saw a Red Crescent 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 a civilian drove up in a minivan, pulled a U-turn 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 off toward a hospital, the coroner said.

Demoustier said after the ruling that the inquest had not made 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.

The U.S. Embassy in London said it had no immediate reaction to the ruling.

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."

She called the killing a war crime ? "a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act."

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 in the ITN crew, and cameraman Fred Nerac remains missing and presumed dead.

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

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.

In Britain, inquests take place when a person dies violently, unexpectedly, or of unknown causes. In the case of an overseas death, the inquest is held in the first English jurisdiction where the body is returned.
 
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.

 
Right, our troops 'at war' should be able to shoot anyone for any or no reason and have no questions asked.

Just ask the right wingers. And any 'foreigners' should be presumed guilty of anything and everything, given no rights at all.

And we're the good guys.

That's the problem - these right wingers are unable to be fair, to treat others with justice; any compromises they make to give others a few rights, they see as proving their generosity.

Then to further justify their injustices they throw out some examples 'hey they beheaded people' to demonize the 'other side' in some simplistic way to make them all war criminals.

In other words, both sides doing wrong becomes 'we're justifed, they're evil'. The Japanese did atrocities in WWII; they didn't firebomb dozens of US cities as we did theirs. North Vietnamese troops committed terrible murders; they didn't bomb villages with Napalm. But ask a right winger, and only one side is right, one wrong.

The way to handle these things is to identify the appropriate rules in combat for justice - starting with the Geneva convention - and then at the inquest to determine whether what the US did fell under legitimate war behavior, where indeed terrible things sometimes do happen, or whether it was unjustified.

The US not allowing troops to participate *even with England*, the apparent erasure of evidence, do not show the US doing the rightthing for justice - but the right-wingers don't care. Justice is not on their agenda, only one-sidedness. Their behavior is that of any evil power in history, denying rights to others, protecting only their own power.

You see it in extremes - so that when the *Bush* administration gave tens of millions of dollars in aid to the Taliban in 2001, it means nothing, but they'll then argue that meaningless evidence proves Saddam was involved in 9/11 planning with Al Queda. It's utterly dishonest, biased behavior - the fulfillment of 'absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely'.

And I think it's turning America evil, when they are able to do it, making the right-wingers the enemies of America, to ruin her good name, her morality.
 
There already is a process, the military has a code of justice and works from there. This guy wants a civilian trial for the troops.

That is my point.
 
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:
 
Originally posted by: Genx87
There already is a process, the military has a code of justice and works from there. This guy wants a civilian trial for the troops.

That is my point.


I think the main point in the article if you failed to read it is that he was shot in the head. I don't know what other evidence there is, but I just hope it wasn't at point blank range.

 
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.
 
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.

exactly, especially when you are basically on top of the OPFOR.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Right, our troops 'at war' should be able to shoot anyone for any or no reason and have no questions asked.

Insert "if they feel their lives are in danger" and that sentence makes sense. That is assuming that you don't believe that our troops should just sit their waiting ducks until they actually get blown up.

NO ONE except radicals believes that innocent people should be shot. And just to think the left thinks they support our troops... 🙁

 
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.

so, about the local population then, is it their fault when they get killed by US soldiers?
 
Originally posted by: GTKeeper
Originally posted by: Genx87
There already is a process, the military has a code of justice and works from there. This guy wants a civilian trial for the troops.

That is my point.


I think the main point in the article if you failed to read it is that he was shot in the head. I don't know what other evidence there is, but I just hope it wasn't at point blank range.

The article I read this morning indicated he was shot in the head as a bullet passed through the van he was in. This indicates to me at least, nobody lined up and executed the buy but he got hit by a bullet in the heat of battle.

/shrug
 
Originally posted by: Czar
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.

so, about the local population then, is it their fault when they get killed by US soldiers?

What about responding to the substance of the question, genius.
 
Insert "if they feel their lives are in danger" and that sentence makes sense. That is assuming that you don't believe that our troops should just sit their waiting ducks until they actually get blown up.

NO ONE except radicals believes that innocent people should be shot. And just to think the left thinks they support our troops...

First, just 'feeling' their lives are in danger is not enough. Do they get to decide that every car on the road they see might be a terrorist and so they can shoot every car? According to your statement - yes.

As I said - you need to set up the reasonable rules, and then determine whether they're followed.

You are not doing this. First, the right-wingers are taking virtually any incident and assuming the facts - in effect they are saying that the US troops should have virtually no rules. Of course, they'll add that some cold blooded murders are not ok, but then they'll set up the rules so that any such acts are easy to cover up.

Second, they are failing to help investigate the acts that do happen under the British law when it applies.

So, they may have a few incidents that get prosecuted when the situation is extremely wrong and the facts somehow get out, but they fail to do basic justice in many, many cases. The right-wingers are supporters of war crimes, pure and simple, as they have double standards, and base their policies on treating others as deserving of any violence at all.

There are many, many cases of US troops killing innocent civilians because inadequate care was taken; just listen to the troops who tell many of the horror stories. Where's the accountability? The right-wingers sweep all the problem under the rug by assuming it was all justified. And that's a moral problem.

The right wing is often terribly irresponsible - and its resulting actions are often evil.
 
Only a sissy reporter goes into a war zone expecting not to get shot. We kill a lot of our own troops all the time by accident.
 
Originally posted by: Craig234
Insert "if they feel their lives are in danger" and that sentence makes sense. That is assuming that you don't believe that our troops should just sit their waiting ducks until they actually get blown up.

NO ONE except radicals believes that innocent people should be shot. And just to think the left thinks they support our troops...

First, just 'feeling' their lives are in danger is not enough. Do they get to decide that every car on the road they see might be a terrorist and so they can shoot every car? According to your statement - yes.

As I said - you need to set up the reasonable rules, and then determine whether they're followed.

You are not doing this. First, the right-wingers are taking virtually any incident and assuming the facts - in effect they are saying that the US troops should have virtually no rules. Of course, they'll add that some cold blooded murders are not ok, but then they'll set up the rules so that any such acts are easy to cover up.

I don't see where you are getting this. I think what you are seeing is right-wingers giving the soldier the benefit of the doubt. Obviously this is a huge mistake, but why would you automatically assume that the soldier went out of their way to kill an innocent person?

Second, they are failing to help investigate the acts that do happen under the British law when it applies.

So, they may have a few incidents that get prosecuted when the situation is extremely wrong and the facts somehow get out, but they fail to do basic justice in many, many cases. The right-wingers are supporters of war crimes, pure and simple, as they have double standards, and base their policies on treating others as deserving of any violence at all.

Wow, you are so far left it makes me want to puke. I seriously have no argument for this because it is so far out there, that I don't feel I can reel you in. I am astonished that you really do feel this way. *Passes out the tin-foil hats*

There are many, many cases of US troops killing innocent civilians because inadequate care was taken; just listen to the troops who tell many of the horror stories. Where's the accountability? The right-wingers sweep all the problem under the rug by assuming it was all justified. And that's a moral problem.

The right wing is often terribly irresponsible - and its resulting actions are often evil.

No one is denying that there are casualties that should not happen in this war. I have no problem admitting that. Out of curiousity, do you know anyone who has been in Iraq closely and discussed the war with them? I think you will find that the good things, or the problems that the soldiers encounter aren't talked about on the news. If we were to go through every situation that resulted in a death, our news broadcasts would be nothing but that. Instead, they focus on the highly negative or highly positive things. Such as any advancements in establishing a government or an innocent person dying.

The news broadcasts that have a political agenda will often focus on either negativity or give a positive spin to those situations depending on which side of the line they stand on. I am not going to say that a terrorist dying is a positive thing, although you could argue that it is. But instead, I will just state that this innocent person that died is likely not the only person who died that day. Many more terrorists were probably casualties of war, some new bridges may have been reconstructed, cleaning up some of the destruction probably ensued on this day, and i'm sure many other things that could be viewed as a positive thing could be looked at. But i'm sure you don't want to look at anything from a positive point of view, do you?
 
Wow, you are so far left it makes me want to puke. I seriously have no argument for this because it is so far out there, that I don't feel I can reel you in. I am astonished that you really do feel this way. *Passes out the tin-foil hats*

This is the same genius who linked to an article about the good things in Chavez he claimed wasnt propaganda. The article was linked to a newspaper dedicated to a partisan communist agenda lmao.

Gives you an idea of just how far left he really is.

 
An inquest has determined that there is evidence of a crime being committed against a citizen. They could have found that the death was accidental but they said there was probable cause pointing to the crime of murder.

All this 'shiet' happens stuff does not fit. It probably did not occur by accident. So don't ya think it is important to produce the person or persons 'accused' and let them explain what occured? Surely in a Court in a country like England or Scotland one can expect a fair trial with a jury of fair minded people ... just like in the USA..
 
Originally posted by: TravisT
Originally posted by: Craig234
Insert "if they feel their lives are in danger" and that sentence makes sense. That is assuming that you don't believe that our troops should just sit their waiting ducks until they actually get blown up.

NO ONE except radicals believes that innocent people should be shot. And just to think the left thinks they support our troops...

First, just 'feeling' their lives are in danger is not enough. Do they get to decide that every car on the road they see might be a terrorist and so they can shoot every car? According to your statement - yes.

As I said - you need to set up the reasonable rules, and then determine whether they're followed.

You are not doing this. First, the right-wingers are taking virtually any incident and assuming the facts - in effect they are saying that the US troops should have virtually no rules. Of course, they'll add that some cold blooded murders are not ok, but then they'll set up the rules so that any such acts are easy to cover up.

I don't see where you are getting this. I think what you are seeing is right-wingers giving the soldier the benefit of the doubt. Obviously this is a huge mistake, but why would you automatically assume that the soldier went out of their way to kill an innocent person?

The issue is not 'giving the soldier the benefit of the doubt'. I do that, too. "Beyond any reasonable doubt", remember?

It's also setting up all kinds of things for their to be a lack of accountability, a lack of evidence - beyond 'the benefit of the doubt', the troops have immunity from all Iraqi, international and other law; they have all kinds of secrecy practices protecting info from usually getting out on their actions (it usually takes some exceptional act of courage for one of their fellow troops to be a whistle-blower *with* evidence that's rarely available); they have the US government refuse to let witnesses testify to the truth, etc.

But you are too biased to see those and other excessive measures that deny justice, instead you have rose-colored glasses which see only 'the benefit of the doubt'.

This partisan bias makes you into a supporter of war crimes.

Second, they are failing to help investigate the acts that do happen under the British law when it applies.

So, they may have a few incidents that get prosecuted when the situation is extremely wrong and the facts somehow get out, but they fail to do basic justice in many, many cases. The right-wingers are supporters of war crimes, pure and simple, as they have double standards, and base their policies on treating others as deserving of any violence at all.

Wow, you are so far left it makes me want to puke. I seriously have no argument for this because it is so far out there, that I don't feel I can reel you in. I am astonished that you really do feel this way. *Passes out the tin-foil hats*[/quote]

The old saying is ignorance is bliss. Your post shows you in just such bliss. If you got better informed - which I put the odds pretty low on - you would lose the bliss.

But you would gain something useful, truth about the issue. In the meantime, there's some poetic justice in your puking, so go ahead; my post is not 'left', by the way.

You see the facts as 'left', because of your own bias.

There are many, many cases of US troops killing innocent civilians because inadequate care was taken; just listen to the troops who tell many of the horror stories. Where's the accountability? The right-wingers sweep all the problem under the rug by assuming it was all justified. And that's a moral problem.

The right wing is often terribly irresponsible - and its resulting actions are often evil.

No one is denying that there are casualties that should not happen in this war. I have no problem admitting that. Out of curiousity, do you know anyone who has been in Iraq closely and discussed the war with them? I think you will find that the good things, or the problems that the soldiers encounter aren't talked about on the news. If we were to go through every situation that resulted in a death, our news broadcasts would be nothing but that. Instead, they focus on the highly negative or highly positive things. Such as any advancements in establishing a government or an innocent person dying.

The news broadcasts that have a political agenda will often focus on either negativity or give a positive spin to those situations depending on which side of the line they stand on. I am not going to say that a terrorist dying is a positive thing, although you could argue that it is. But instead, I will just state that this innocent person that died is likely not the only person who died that day. Many more terrorists were probably casualties of war, some new bridges may have been reconstructed, cleaning up some of the destruction probably ensued on this day, and i'm sure many other things that could be viewed as a positive thing could be looked at. But i'm sure you don't want to look at anything from a positive point of view, do you?
[/quote]

I do, when it's true. That's the difference - you assume the facts in a biased way. Look at your own words, showing how you just invent good news - "is likely not... may have been... probably ensued..." You don't need any facts to reach your conclusions. You just make them up - there are all these good things going on, and you're done with your investigation.

Much of what you say about the media's selectivity is true, though it's not for the reason you allege. It's the same way that there are news stories about celebrity babies, random violent acts, and other such sensationalism that sells, things that fit marketable stories - stories about "US Troops rebuilt a bridge" or "US Troops have practices dangerous to Iraqi civilians" *don't sell*, and that's the reason rather than political bias that they get little coverage - Fox excepted, as it does have a political agenda, albeit market-influenced.

You don't know and don't care about the facts, to find them out and have an informed view. How was the $20 billion of *Iraqi* money the US took control of to spend on rebuilding Iraq spent? What has been done to restore power to Iraq? How many billions have been wasted, whether through disppearing without any accounting, or funneled to republican-connected contractors who grossly overcharge? What has happened to the rebuilding of schools, hospitals, or other services?

Go find out - and when you do, if the info is positive, celebreate it, and if it's negative, say so. I want to see the good news when it's *true*.

As for Genx87, he just has reading comprehension difficulties.

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.

He cannot disprove any of the article and he misses the tongue in cheek nature of where it's linked from and so just posts his misguided attack.
 
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...
 
Back
Top