In article , Scott
Seidman wrote:



I'm often one of the first to criticize the cluster**** that Iraq has
become, but its hardly surprising when a journalist dies in a war zone,
accidentally or not. This is what makes war correspondents heroic. They
risk their lives to tell us what needs to be told.

This Lloyd guy knew the risks, and he assumed them. He was in the middle
of a bunch of 18 year olds in combat. I'm pretty sure that had he lived,
he'd be amongst the last to call this scenario a war crime.

Hi Scott

Your post is perfectly reasonable. I was filming in Afghanistan earlier
this year, and was threatened both by Taliban supporters and by US
military. (not by any brits but that was just happenstance.) I and all
my colleagues know the risks.

The trouble with Terry Lloyd is that he was not killed accidentally. He
was killed deliberately, with no excuse, by US marines, as he was being
rushed to hospital. Not my view - the view of the coroner at his
inquest.

Secondly, the marines who did it knew that they would not suffer any
comeback, and nor will they. They know that they may murder whomever
thy like with impunity.

Of all countries, the US had, until recently, an impressive tradition
of free journalism, which has been an essential element of the American
consitution. Not any more though. Had reporting been better, the war in
Iraq would not have taken place. It's in everyone's interests that
there should be a free press in American war zones, and you won't get
that if Marines regularly murder journalists whom they don't like, and
know that they'll suffer no ill-effects.

More British troops in Iraq, by the way, have been killed by their
American colleagues than have been killed by 'insurgents'.

On British journalism, I can only quote (from memory)

You cannot cheat nor bribe nor twist,
Thank God, the British journalist.
But, given what the man will do
*unbribed*, there's no occasion to.

Lazarus