Reuters Calls for U.S. Report on Cameraman's Death

[DuctapeFatwa]

Reuters Chief Executive Tom Glocer has criticized the "haphazard" handling of a U.S. report into the killing of a Reuters cameraman by a U.S. soldier in Iraq and urged the Pentagon to hand it over.
Glocer told Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld in a letter released on Thursday that he was deeply dismayed that neither Reuters nor the family of its cameraman Mazen Dana had been properly informed of the conclusion of a military investigation into Dana's death. The letter was sent on Wednesday.

Dana, an award-winning Palestinian cameraman, was shot by a soldier on a tank as he filmed near Baghdad on August 17.

A U.S. military spokesman in Baghdad told other reporters on Monday that the inquiry had found troops respected their rules of engagement in the incident, but that Washington would not publish the full report.

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3507487

[mddemo]

1. easy one this

the soldiers thought he was carrying a shoulder anti tank missile, they defended themselves, they made a mistake, they had a split second to make the decision. The number of times ive been involved on blue on blues situations (friendly fire) i know how easy it is to make mistakes in combat. Hopefully the troopers will realise this and not blame themselves.

[Djinn]

2. really?

so when thousands of Iraqis see US soldiers who are most definetly carrying weapons and shoot to kill in return will they too be totally blameless?

[mddemo]

3. second guessing

its real easy to second guess from behind a computer screen, and if said iraquis want to shoot at armed soldiers then they are making a conscious decision to attack. So the blame thing dosent really come into it. Its all about the intent of the soldiers, are you prepared to state here that the soldiers shot the cameraman intentionally knowing he was a cameraman, if not then you have to accept they made a mistake.

[Orangeone]

4. Yes, but

Whenever there is an Military inquiry, I don't expect much. It seems like they always end up exonerating themselves, which isn't a suprize 'cause the its the Military investigating the Military.

[leesa]

6. Do you know how many reporters and cameramen have been killed in

Iraq? These are not likely to be accidents. Murdering of the reporters in the hotel, bombing of Al Jazeera. Sorry, these guys had identified themselves to the soldiers as press and THEN they were killed.
Once or twice...maybe...but scores of deaths under very peculiar and demonstrably untrue scenarios? I think not.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

10. No, I say they shot him because they are cowards.

They are cowards and war criminals who are shooting first and asking questions later. They are paid to take risks, so they should wait until they are actually fired upon before killing people.

In fact, they MUST wait. You can't just murder someone because you think they MIGHT be a threat. Until they actually do something, they are in fact just innocent people.

It goes to this whole innocent until proven guilty in a court of law thing. The idea is the same. How would you react if US police just drove around shooting anyone who MIGHT be a threat?

[mddemo]

12. cowards

Obviously youve never been fired apon, to call any of the GI's cowards is nuts. if a man pulls a gun on you, do you want the cops waiting until he actually fires and kills you to wait, no you dont, you want them to protect you. This situation is exactly the same, the soldier percieved a threat and neutralised it, unfortunatley he made an error. and yes it is a split second deciscion, when your lifes on the line you dont take too long to make your mind up, fight or flight.

[hussar]

13. I have been fired upon

next

[mddemo]

14. and your response

did you fire back, if you saw the guy with with weapon aiming at you , would you of fired first. As an ex pongo you know the ROE, you know they state that you may fire first if you believe theres imminent danger.

PS always glad to say hi to a fellow pongo. :)

[hussar]

15. I do believe "pongo" is a navy term regarding Army guys

I didn't fire back as our patrol could not tell where the rounds came from, we were trained well and thus we didn't return fire in blind panic killing/maiming innocent people.
I know where you are coming from but from what I see it is poor discipline and training and above all the knowledge that they are not answerable to anyone.
If you cannot distinguish between a RPG launcher and a camera you should'nt be in the forces to start with.

Cheers

[Devils Advocate NZ]

21. Well...

if a man pulls a gun on you, do you want the cops waiting until he actually fires and kills you to wait, no you dont, you want them to protect you.

No, you're right. If he pulls a GUN on me then by all means shoot him. If he pulls a CAMERA however...

This situation is exactly the same, the soldier percieved a threat and neutralised it, unfortunatley he made an error. and yes it is a split second deciscion, when your lifes on the line you dont take too long to make your mind up, fight or flight.

No it is not. The reporter had a CAMERA and was clearly identified as a reporter. Do you not think it might have been better to find out if he actually had a weapon before you shoot him?

Second, this is not a war, it is an occupation. The rules have changed. You can't just shoot anything that could be threatening, you have to determine whether the threat is REAL. That is why I say soldiers are supposed to take risks. Not taking risks in this case got an innocent man killed, making the soldier a murderer.

It's the same as a police officer. Unless you are saying a police officer should shoot anyone who might potentially be a threat, without warning, and without attempting to verify the threat.

What was the vehicle commander doing with his magnified sights? Why didn't HE verify the threat?

By the way, if you saw the video, you know it wasn't a "split second" decision. They had been driving up the road towards the reporter for some time, and should have had him under observation the whole time. It's not like he suddenly popped up with what appeared to be an RPG.

In fact he had been standing side on to them, which would have showed that it was a camera rather than an RPG. I don't care how much they may have looked alike ftom the front, from the side they look NOTHING alike.

So, he had been in full view for a long time, he had been standing side on which would have showed what he was carrying, and then about 10 to 15 seconds before they shot him he turned and began filming them. All the while he had been wearing clothing marked to show he was a reporter.

There is NO excuse.

[hang a left]

8. eau de freep

[Barrett808]

5. It might appear that way at first

But, as I recall, the journalists were clearly identified as such, and witnesses reported that the soldiers recognized them as journalists. From what I've read, this was not a case of a split-second decision -- it looks much more ominous and calculated.

[mddemo]

7. yeah right

And all soldiers are killers and put babies on spikes, get real, journalists and especially cameramen are always putting themselves on the line for the best shot. How many reporters do you think were killed in WW2, and dont tell me the troops then were intentionally targeting them. Ill go with what the troopers say, or once again do you think that the GI's are slotting journos for points.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

9. The old "split second" lie.

They had a "split second" to decide? How so? He WASN'T carrying an RPG, so they had PLENTY of time to decide not to kill him.

Are US "Rules of Engagement" based on "pre-emptive" force? You know, kill him BEFORE he turns into a threat? Shoot first ask questions later?

If so, then they are a war crime, because they do not allow for the distinction between civillian and combatant.

Hoepfully the troopers will realise that their leaders are turning them all into murdering war criminals, and they will refuse to obey these criminal orders (which is in the UCMJ, if I recall correctly).

Of course, if they stop shooting anything that even looks slightly dangerous, they may actually earn the respect of the civillian population and thus help to PREVENT attacks on US troops. But I won't hold my breath.

[mddemo]

11. rpg

oh so i get it now, they are meant to wait until they have an anti tank missile richocheting inside the tank, this is called rece by fire, real dangerous. the soldier saw someone who he believed was aiming an anti tank missile at his vehicle and he responded, thats what your trained to do. Sometimes mistakes are made, its called blue on blue. From what ive read the trooper obeyed the ROE and is therefore not at fault. Or would you have every cop, who fires his weapon when he believes he or you is in danger on murder charges.

[Atreides73]

16. Friendly fire

The US military gained a notority for its friendly fire kills (just ask the British, the Canadians, or Iraqi police). My guess is that the US rules of engagement say 'when in doubt, kill, then identify' in contrast to 'when in doubt, disengage (or take cover), then identify'.

If you occupy a country to free its people you have to avoid such incidents and policies, since it tells the people, that you would rather kill their innocent children, than endanger your own troops. It shows that there is no compassion for them, and makes it impossible to win their hearts.

[hussar]

17. Exactly

well put

[mddemo]

18. regiment

i noticed you said you served with the KOSBies, I was Argyles, then RHF, then for my sins i joined civvy street, then joined the Royal Navy, What regiment did you serve in, just a matter of interest mate.

this is one topic i dont think we will agree upon, so we will have to agree to disagree.

[hussar]

19. served alongside KOSB

I was Queens Own Hussars ........Tankies...2 tours, 77, 79

Yup I can't agree with you on that one, don't believe in all this gung ho shit and kill, kill , kill, I believe that a well trained soldier will earn far more respect than some yobs acting like they're on a pub crawl...just my 2 cents worth old chap

[mddemo]

20. service

gladly share a shellscrape with you anyday mate. heres to the thin red line and the gallant heavy horse.

[Devils Advocate NZ]

22. Nope, that just doesn't cut it, and here is why:

He was clearly marked as a reporter. He was in full view for a LONG time before the shooting took place. They saw he had a camera, because he was standing side on to them, and they had magnified sights in the vehicle, at least they SHOULD have seen this.

Are you telling me that an armoured vehicle would drive right up to someone they thought might have an RPG?

Or are you telling me that armoured vehicles can only see about 50 metres in front of them?

Because that was about the distance he was shot from, and the vehicle had been travelling up a straight road for some distance BEFORE the shooting.

He didn't just jump out at them or anything, he had been standing there the whole time. The only difference was that about 10 to 15 seconds before he was shot, he turned to film the vehicle.

So, either they INTENTIONALLY shot a reporter, or they were so scared, they forgot that a reporter was standing there and shot him out of fear.

Murderers or cowards or totally incompetant. No matter which way it goes, the soldiers responsible should be charged, either with murder or negligent manslaughter.

By the way, operating within the rules of engagement is no defense, because if the rules of engagement allow soldiers to shoot innocent people without warning and without verifying the threat, then the rules of engagement are a war crime, and thus under the UCMJ should be refused. Just following orders is NOT a defense.