Iraq reporter 'unlawfully killed'

[annabanana]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6046950.stm




"A coroner has returned a verdict of unlawful killing on ITN reporter Terry Lloyd, who was killed in southern Iraq.
An inquest heard Mr Lloyd, 50, died after being hit by a US bullet near Basra in March 2003. His interpreter died and his cameraman is missing.

Mr Lloyd was covering the British and American invasion of Iraq as a "unilateral" journalist, rather than "embedded" with the military.

The National Union of Journalists (NUJ) said the killing was a "war crime".

[saigon68]

1. NO ONE WILL ANSWER FOR THIS DEATH

Any more than anyone will be prosecuted for this Guy being

"beaten and pulped to death"

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

21. Enlisted Only:

[SpiralHawk]

2. "Dead reporters tell no tales" - BushCo

"So move along. There is nothing to see here." - BushCo

[Briar]

3. It appears

that US marines observed Iraqi civilians heroically rescuing casualties of the fighting and deliberately shot at the minibus carrying injured survivors - in an act of vengeance or trigger happy mayhem. They weren't shooting specifically at unembedded journalists, but simply at civilians who might otherwise have survived their onslaught.


Mrs Lloyd said:

"This was a very serious war crime, how else can firing on a vehicle in these circumstances be interpreted?

"This was not a friendly fire incident or a crossfire incident, it was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act, particularly as it came many minutes after the initial exchange.

"US forces appear to have allowed their soldiers to behave like trigger happy cowboys in an area where civilians were moving around."

His daughter Chelsey said: "The killing of my father would seem to amount to murder, which is deeply shocking."

Murder. A war crime. But I fear no US marine will ever face justice.

[semillama]

4. The reporter was shot in the stomach

and Iraqis loaded him with other wounded into a minivan to remove him from the fighting. Marines fired on the minivan. Lloyd died from a gunshot wound to the HEAD.

Sounds deliberate to me. He was at the scene in a vehicle marked PRESS.

Gonna be interesting to see the UK reaction to this.

[Briar]

7. He wasn't in the press van when he was killed

He was in a civilian minibus driven by heroic Iraqis along with other casualties.

[mainegreen]

5. Now if only the British would go after their own with such pizazz.

Like say some of their police force in London?

[Briar]

8. Wearing the uniform

licenses the murder. Time we stopped glorifying war and violence and squealing "no equivalence" when our patriotic troops are caught dealing in terror and slaughter.

[gratuitous]

6. Oh well, fog of war, mistakes were made, sorry for your loss

Okay, that takes care of wrongful deaths from March 2003. Ready to move on to April 2003? We'll get back to you in 2011 or so . . .

[MattP]

9. CNN reporting jornalist unlawfully killed by U.S. forces in Iraq2003

CNN-- A coroner ruled on Friday that a British journalist who died in Iraq at the start of the war was unlawfully killed by American forces.

Terry Lloyd, a correspondent with the British TV network ITN , was killed outside Basra in southern Iraq in March 2003.


http://edition.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/10/13/lloyd.inquest/index.html

[Junkdrawer]

10. 1 down, 654,999 to go.....

The courts could be busy for a while...

[thereismore]

11. Thou shalt not unlawfully kill? nt

[w4rma]

19. Thou shalt not murder. (nt)

[jobycom]

12. I particularly like the US statement in reply

"The Department of Defense has never deliberately targeted noncombatants, including journalists," the Pentagon said. "We have always gone to extreme measures to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage."

Excdept, or course, the extreme measure of not invading an innocent nation to begin with.

[Dover]

Well, if the press can't prove guilt, I hope they will fire back with

verbal and written bullets. This is a huge threat to freedom of speech and people's right to know.
They are the first line of defense against renegade government.

[Dover]

34. Well, if the press can't prove guilt, I hope they will fire back with

verbal and written bullets. This is a huge threat to freedom of speach.

[INDIA]

42. Yeah, because it's the Pentagon that decides that. n/t

[Moderator]

13. Kick

tons of dupes on this one!
:-)

[warishell]

14. Thousands of innocents have been murdered

This is just 1 of many.

[newyawker99]

18. Hi warishell!!

Welcome to DU!! :toast:

[JawJaw]

15. This won't go away

Terry Lloyd was a hugely respected and experienced journalist.

The British news media won't let this story get buried. For them, this war crime is personal

[IndianaGreen]

16. It was a cold blooded murder by US Marines

and this was early enough in the war so there is no excuse of troops being stressed out. The Marines were joyfully trigger happy. The UK should seek their extradition!

[INDIA]

20. Your quote:

"and this was early enough in the war so there is no excuse of troops being stressed out."

Ummmmmm.... You think combat is only stressful after months instead of weeks? I'm sure you have TONS of combat experience to back up that ridiculous assertion. My grandfather flew bombing raids over Germany, always less than 18 hours and then he was back in England for a week or so. I'm not sure, but I THINK he might have been stressed out. This may be the dumbest thing I have ever seen posted on DU.

"It was a cold blooded murder by US Marines"

Really? You were there? You should testify at trial!

"The Marines were joyfully trigger happy."

You have no friggin idea what their frame of mind was. Why don't you bash the military a little more without any knowledge to back up your bunk assertions.

Combat situations are scary and confusing. There may have been poor judgment used when firing on the van(nobody knows for sure yet, especially YOU), but to say it was intentional murder is bullshit. It's a fantasy for the anti-military crowd, which you are apparently apart of.

[IndianaGreen]

22. Some Germans defended the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht

as some Americans today defend war crimes committed by US troops. If you choose to be a "good German" that's your business, I prefer to count myself among those that opposed wars of aggression, whether launched by the Germans, Japanese, or Americans.

The evidence against the men you defend is incontrovertible. To me there are nothing more than common murderers and criminals that should face justice in Britain for murder:

Coroner seeks trial for US troops who killed TV man

Audrey Gillan and Julian Borger in Washington
Saturday October 14, 2006
The Guardian

The American soldiers who shot dead the ITN journalist Terry Lloyd could face trial in a British court for murder after a coroner ruled that they had unlawfully killed an innocent civilian.
Andrew Walker, the assistant deputy coroner for Oxfordshire, said yesterday he would be writing to the attorney general and the director of public prosecutions "to see whether any steps can be taken to bring the perpetrators responsible for this to justice".

The verdict was welcomed by Lloyd's family, employers and the National Union of Journalists. His widow Lynn accused US forces of allowing soldiers to "behave like trigger-happy cowboys in an area in which there were civilians travelling on a highway". In a statement she said: "The marines who fired on civilians and those who gave those orders should now stand trial. Under the Geneva Conventions Act, that trial should be for the murder of Terry Lloyd and nothing less."

Lloyd's daughter Chelsey, 24, said: "My father was unlawfully killed by a bullet to the head from a heavy-calibre machine gun fired by US marines. The killing of my father would seem to amount to murder."

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1922366,00.html

Family of reporter shot in Iraq call for Marines to face criminal charges
By Geneviève Roberts
Published: 14 October 2006

American troops then started firing at both the clearly marked television vehicles driven by the ITN team. Lloyd was killed outright when he was hit in the head by an American bullet as he was being taken for medical treatment by an Iraqi civilian. "I am sure it was the intention of those who opened fire to kill or cause serious injury to those inside the minibus," Mr Walker said.

"I have no doubt it was the fact that the vehicle stopped to pick up survivors that prompted the Americans to fire at the vehicle."

Mr Lloyd's Lebanese interpreter, Hussein Osman, was also killed on 22 March 2003 and a French cameraman, Fred Nerac, remains missing, presumed dead.

A Belgian cameraman, Daniel Demoustier, was the only survivor from the ITN team.

Mr Demoustier told the inquest that "all hell broke loose" and he was "100 per cent certain" that he was going to die.

Lloyd's widow, Lynn, said: "This was not a friendly fire incident or a crossfire incident, it was a despicable, deliberate, vengeful act, particularly as it came many minutes after the initial exchange."

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/legal/article1870867.ece

[INDIA]

23. Ah yes...the good old US Troops=Nazis argument

Just as disgusting as the first time I heard it.

How the hell can a coroner in England know the events that lead up to a bullet wound being intentional or accidental? Guess what, he can't. It's no doubt that a bullet killed him, the intentions of the person who fired it can't be determined by a British coroner or an understandably biased and grieving widow.

There needs to be an investigation interviewing the people present, and until a military court makes a judgment, reasonable and rational people will refrain from making uninformed and ignorant assertions.

There are bullshit stories published everyday in foreign media about "atrocities" US troops are involved in. The Middle East, Latin America and China are the worst offenders. Yet the same people on DU who claim the media is always lying just LOVE to believe any story that bashes the US or, as of lately, Israel. I've seen stories about AIR FORCE Apaches (there is no such thing) being shot down, and Marine Snipers killing families of 4 just for fun(when it was obviously sectarian violence), dead babies hanging from trees in Beirut, etc. etc.

It's commendable to oppose wars of aggression. It's disgusting to bash US troops, unless you know for sure they have committed a wrong, WHICH YOU DON'T. You would have fit in well in Salem.

[Stella_Artois]

24. OK Mr soldier supporter

"It's disgusting to bash US troops, unless you know for sure they have committed a wrong, WHICH YOU DON'T"

This reporter shot himself in the stomach, ran into the minibus, made it drive away from American troops, and then shot himself in the head.

No US troops were harmed in the production of this BS.

[INDIA]

25. First off, they're Marines, not soldiers.

Soldiers are in the Army. But I'm sure you're an expert on the military.

Second, I never disputed the fact that he was shot by US Marines as you insinuate. I DO question the logic of many on this board that the Marines intentionally fired on him knowing he was an unarmed reporter. That's just so ridiculous I don't know where to begin. Try reading my posts before you respond to them.

By the way, he was shot by Iraqis first, entered an unmarked speeding van, and then was shot. It is a LOT more likely that some young Marine thought the van was full of explosives or insurgents when he engaged the vehicle. A tragic mistake that happens in combat zones, but not intentional murder by any means. Innocent until proven guilty.

And BTW, this article smells to high hell. You have a widow and coroner, both in England at the time of his death, claiming they know the exact factual events that lead up to his death, i.e., intentional murder on behalf of the U.S. Marines. Ok, well we the biased opinion of a grieving (and understandably angry) widow. We have the opinion of a coroner who magically can tell the difference between an intentional bullet wound and an accidental bullet wound. The ONE guy who survived and was quoted had his quote taken completely out of context. All hell broke loose? What hell? From who? Was it intentional? Why do you think that? Why is he only QUOTED IN ONE LINE EVEN THOUGH HE WAS SUPPOSEDLY an eyewitness. You'd think he would either corroborate the widows assertion or contradict it, he does neither. Maybe the reporter got an answer from him that wouldn't sell papers.

My favorite quote was from the coroner claiming that the Marines intended to kill whoever was in the van. Well no shit Sherlock, that's why they fired. The question here is if they knew they were firing on a reporter and intentionally trying to kill him, which common sense dictates that no, they did not.

Although common sense seems to be lacking on DU lately. *Cough* MIHOP *Cough*

[muriel_volestrangler]

26. If he was known as a reporter is not relevant to the coroner's verdict

Mr Walker said: "I have no doubt Mr Lloyd was killed by a tracer bullet fired from an American gun. This injury was received after Mr Lloyd had been placed in the rear of the minibus and was consistent with a hole in the back of the minibus ... In my view, I have no doubt that the minibus presented no threat to the American forces. It was obvious that wounded persons were getting into the vehicle."

The US soldiers did not fire in self-defence, he ruled. Had the killing taken place under English law "it would have constituted an unlawful homicide".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1922365,00.html

Killing an injured civilian who poses no threat to a soldier is indeed illegal. I believe killing an injured soldier who posed no threat would be illegal too, just like firing on an ambulance which the minibus was clearly acting as.

[INDIA]

27. Let's try again...

"In my view, I have no doubt that the minibus presented no threat to the American forces. It was obvious that wounded persons were getting into the vehicle."


And a coroner in England examining a body killed in Iraq comes to these conclusions how? The article is a little....uh...."lacking" on the facts.

"The US soldiers did not fire in self-defence, he ruled."

And he can tell this by examining a tracer bullet wound? Is he a coroner or a psychic detective?
Besides, this genius fails to realize that US Marines are tasked with seeking out and killing an enemy force, not simply "defending themselves" when they get shot at first.



"Had the killing taken place under English law "it would have constituted an unlawful homicide"."

Different standards in a war zone. Not English law. As long as the Marine reasonably felt threatened enough at the time to fire, and he followed the rules of engagement, he isn't liable criminally. The reporter accepted this risk when he signed up for a dangerous assignment. But yes, if the same action happened in the civilian world it probably would have been manslaughter or third degree murder etc.

My grandpa was a bombardier during WWII, probably killed dozens, if not hundreds of civilians while targeting factories. Guess what, he isn't a murderer, nor is he civilly or criminally liable to the families of the bombing victims. Different standards for military in wartime and civilians in peacetime, and justifiably so.

[muriel_volestrangler]

28. From six days of evidence in the inquest

In which video was shown, and witnesses were examined. The US military handed over a video, but had edited 15 minutes from it. They refused to send the troops concerned to the inquest to be questioned.

Why did the Marines fire on an injured man, especially when he had been injured by the Iraqis? If that wasn't enough to show he wasn't an Iraqi combatant, then what would be?

The cameraman who was with Lloyd:

Earlier, Demoustier told the inquest he "could not believe" US forces had fired at him.

He said: "Most of the bullets were definitely coming from the American tanks.

"I tried to put my hands in the air facing the US tanks because I couldn't imagine they couldn't see I was driving a clearly-marked Kuwaiti rented four-wheel-drive with TV signs all over it.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/3am/tm_headline=the-15-missing-minutes---&method=full&objectid=17908382&siteid=94762-name_page.html

[INDIA]

29. You answered the big question...

"Why did the Marines fire on an injured man, especially when he had been injured by the Iraqis?"

No motive. None. No reason to. Nothing to gain at all from killing this guy. Common sense. It was an accidental killing in a dangerous, confusing, scary place. It was NOT intentional murder, like many of the above er....."uninformed" posters may claim without any facts to back their assertions.

[Name removed]

30. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[muriel_volestrangler]

31. Reckless firing is still illegal

but given the huge 'TV' markings, it seems possible they did fire on them knowing they were journalists. So a trial is needed to find out the truth from the marines. You are assuming that because a law-abiding person would have no reason to fire, then the marine had no reason either.

[INDIA]

32. I appreciate your opinion...

You're a much more articulate and rational poster than the idiot above. Wasn't he in an unmarked truck when he was shot though? The same kind of van that had been carrying suicide bombs and ferrying insurgents all over Iraq?

I agree with you that there may have been recklessness, which is very difficult to prove in a war zone. I'm at odds with the posters who are saying it was malicious and intentional.

Thanks though, I appreciate your viewpoint.

[muriel_volestrangler]

35. This was before any insurgents or suicide bombs

Mr Walker said he was recording a verdict of unlawful killing because Lloyd had been fatally wounded when he was being rescued by a civilian minibus in full view of American tanks.

There was no justification of self defence, he said, as there would have been earlier when the Americans were firing against Iraqi forces. It was only after the minibus stopped to pick up the wounded, including Lloyd, that the Americans opened fire, the coroner added.

Lloyd and three ITN colleagues were caught in crossfire between Iraqi and American forces as they drove towards Basra on March 22 2003, soon after the US-led invasion of Iraq.

http://media.guardian.co.uk/site/story/0,,1921611,00.html?gusrc=rss&feed=1

[INDIA]

38. Not true...

There were suicide truck bombers and "Fedayeen" terrorists from the earliest hours of the war. Not as prevalent as they are now, but they were there, and they made US troops nervous. In the early weeks, Marines were on edge because of a truck bomb being disguised as an ambulance. Read about in in "Generation Kill." It's a good book documenting one Marine units experience during the invasion.

[Stella_Artois]

36. It was an illegal killing

Of course it was. These soldiers, sorry marines (not that this has the slightest bearing on their being there) were there illegally in an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation. Every time they kill someone it is an illegal act.

[INDIA]

39. That's your opinion...

"were there illegally in an illegal occupation of a sovereign nation."


that it's an illegal war, not a fact. Doesn't really hold up in an argument. I may agree with you in principle, but until it is deemed illegal by an international court or the U.N. (which it won't be) it's a stupid war, not illegal.


"Every time they kill someone it is an illegal act."

Really? Shooting a suicide bomber about to kill another 100 innocent Iraqis is illegal? Killing Saddam's sons in a shootout was illegal? Killing Zarqawi was illegal?

Come on, that assertion is a little broad doncha think? If you're going to argue a point with me, which I enjoy, please stick to facts instead of opinions.

[IndianaGreen]

43. UN Charter outlaws wars of aggression, which is what US invasion of Iraq

was. And then there is the moral issue, best illustrated by the late Pope John Paul II's warning to Bush that if he went into Iraq, he would do so "without God."

Continue goose-stepping with your beloved war criminal troops!

The Crime of War: From Nuremberg to Fallujah

A review of current international law regarding wars of aggression

by Nicolas J. S. Davies
Z magazine, February 2005

Clearly the force of current international law on aggression leaves little doubt that our country is guilty of a serious international crime. In the course of waging this illegal war, the United States has also violated specific provisions of other treaties, in particular the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, also called the Fourth Geneva Convention. This treaty was drafted in 1949, with the benefit of recent memory of the German and Japanese occupations of Europe and Southeast Asia, and it very specifically catalogs and outlaws many of the tactics that can be used to bend a hostile civilian population to the will of a military occupation force.

For example, it contains detailed rules to prevent the abuse of detainees and prisoners; and it bans reprisals, intimidation, and collective punishment (Article 33); the destruction of property (Article 53); creating unemployment (Article 52); and the recruitment of local armed and auxiliary forces (Article 51). The United States has nevertheless employed all these methods in Iraq and President Bush has even cited the recruitment and training of armed forces to fight alongside U.S. forces or in place of them as a centerpiece of his strategy. The illegality of so much of what the U.S. is doing in Iraq is a direct consequence of the illegality of the occupation.

If President Bush were to seek a new, more rational and law-abiding policy, what steps would international law actually require him to take? How could he actually bring legitimacy to this situation? The U.S. government has already gone through a sort of parody of what would be required in the form of UN Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004). However, while this resolution represents a good faith effort on the part of the international community to provide for the welfare of the Iraqi people and for their political future in the face of U.S. determination to "stay the course," it has succeeded in prolonging the war by failing to address the fundamental illegitimacy of the U.S. and British position.

The "Interim Government of Iraq" endorsed in the resolution had no credibility or popular constituency within Iraq and was headed by an acknowledged agent of the CIA who was flown in with the invasion forces. The "multinational force" entrusted with "promoting security and stability" is the same force that unleashed this war on Iraq in the first place and continues to wage it today. The condemnation of terrorism in Article 17 does not, and legally cannot, deprive the Iraqi Resistance of the fundamental right to resist the invasion and occupation of their country that is guaranteed by Article 51 of the United Nations Charter. By its refusal to turn over any real power to legitimate representatives of the Iraqi people or to the UN, the Bush administration has squandered the legitimacy it sought to gain by this resolution as well as precious time and many more lives.

he reality is that for 21 months the United States has been engaged in an unsuccessful war to gain control of Iraq and that U.S. military operations are killing 2 or 3 times as many Iraqi civilians as the Iraqi Resistance and foreign "terrorist" groups put together. In any case, as the aggressors in this conflict, the United States and the United Kingdom are ultimately responsible for "the accumulated evil of the whole."

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/International_War_Crimes/Nuremberg_Fallujah.html

[INDIA]

44. "War Criminal Troops"????????

How do the bad decisions of a corrupt administration make our servicemen war criminals?

Was Casey Sheehan a war criminal? Did Cindy Sheehan's son climax while shooting at civilians? What about the Female Iraq Veteran running as a Dem for congress. She lost both legs, is she a war criminal? The family members of DU'ers, are they war criminals? The military doctors and nurses, are they war criminals? The 18 year old inner city kids trying to pay for college, are they war criminals?

Answer me! Don't disappear like you did last time! Coward! COWARD!

BTW:Oh, Z Magazine says the war is illegal? Well I was hoping for a UN resolution or something, but if Z MAGAZINE SAYS SO....

You really are a disgusting, hateful person. I hope that you can regain your sanity one day.
You embarrass yourself and this website.

[Turley]

46. Don't bother

He's part of the fringe and has nothing really to do with mainstream Democrats.

[INDIA]

47. that "fringe" member

Has 42,000 posts here without getting kicked off. The mods dropped the ball by allowing this crap to be posted. They at least deleted her "troops orgasming while killing civilians" comment, but she'll be allowed to stay.

Double standard. If someone with 100 posts said the same filth she just did, they'd be kicked.

[INDIA]

48. Dupe.

[JoFerret]

37. The Coroner examines the EVIDENCE

...and as a result has arrived at certain conclusions.

(The circumstances as reported in the press do seem to lead to a possible conclusion of murder, perpetrated by a bunch of feckless, reckless trigger-happy individuals.)

I am wondering whther you have read those accounts.

[INDIA]

40. The articles I've read are poorly written

and full of holes.

The article focuses on the opinions of a widow and a coroner, both in the UK. Hardly any accounts from eyewitnesses, except one oddly out of context quote. I agree with you that there may have been recklessness,we don't know yet. I'm arguing against those who are insisting that the Marines intentionally and maliciously murdered this reporter while having orgasms in their pants.:puke:

Read the post above with the subject line "Why do you bother?" There are obviously two sides to this story, but I'll side with the Marines every time until a court proves me wrong.



Why are DU'ers so skeptical with the media until it bashes US troops, at which point they defend the media and take its reporting as absolute truth? Hypocritical? Yup.

[JoFerret]

45. Not the media, but a legal proceeding

A legal proceeding that reached a conclusion.

And - if it makes you feel better - among those whose evidence was heard are British and US troops.

I'll take the careful evidence-based legal conclusions over knee-jerk hysteria any day.

Furthermore - with scores of news people dead and wounded in Iraq - there does seem to be considerable evidence of targetted hostility.

[Turley]

41. "feckless, reckless trigger-happy individuals"

On what do you base that? Eyewitness tesitomy at the hearing said the dark green minivan picked up not only wounded, but also those who had taken part in the fighting. It then sped away in the direction of Basra, presumably so the Iraqi soldiers could rejoin other forces there. That fact alone makes the vehicle a legitimate target. Either the vehicle was not an abulance, or, if it was, the Iraqis violated the law of war by using it to transport troops.

[pinerow]

17. When is one "Lawfully" killed...?

nt

[Dover]

33. Among the first of many which followed. It was recently reported

that Iraq is the most dangerous place for reporters, though I forget how many dead were quoted.
I'm sure the vast majority were killed by "friendly fire", so to speak. So many crimes, so little time to prosecute...
Surely the news agencies will seek their revenge.