On Mon, 12 Nov 2007 17:06:03 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

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.

And the view of his friend and cameraman, Daniel Demoustier, who was
there and survived:

" I think it was a tragic accident."

Was it? I don't know, but I'd offer the word of a "friendly witness"
carries more weight than that of a politically-motivated contract
coroner (and for those who don't know, Mr. - NOT Dr. - Webster, the
coroner, is a barrister, not a medical doctor).

He also managed to find that the evidence was clear that the US forces
"engaged" the RG forces first. Two points about that: 1) it would
hardly seem to matter who fired first in such a situation, but 2)
neither the British solders on the scene or Demoustier could say who
fired first, only that both sides were definitely firing - it was a
firefight.

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.

That's pure bull****. Lloyd's group was traveling with an armed
Republican Guard vehicle (not by choice) and other enemy vehicles and
ran into US forces. A firefight broke out, and Lloyd's team wound up in
the middle of it. There is no way the US forces could have known Lloyd
or anyone else in particular was there, so any accusations of wanting to
"get" Lloyd or even to "get" unilateral reporters in general is
nonsense.


Of all countries, the US had, until recently, an impressive tradition
of free journalism, which has been an essential element of the American
consitution.

Yeah, it's time to hark back to more honest times when all reporters
were not only free, but encouraged to cover Roosevelt's incapacity,
Kennedy's womanizing, etc.

HTH,
R