Wow, way to ruin a thread, and thanks for “YOUR idiot/hate speech.!”
[quote]Hack Wilson wrote:
Let me head-off all the anti-war folks before they populate this thread with their idiot/hate-speech:
While the U.S. military is incompetent, the real fault for the man’s death lies with George W. Bush. He RUSHED TO WAR looking for NON-EXISTENT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. We all know that the war is really about OIL. Therefore we say to you Mr. Bush, “No more blood for oil!” We also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush is liar. We know that BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED. So let me slip that in here, right now.
We also know that Bush is dumb and stupid and he looks like an ape. He is often depicted as BEING a little monkey by the totally non-biased polical cartoonists across this nation which is quickly becoming a fascist state under Bushilter’s evil regime for oil and glorification of Fox News.
After Bush reinstitutes the draft and more KIDS DIE, he will declare martial law and will never leave office. If you don’t belive it, read the PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, Volume II. It’s all in there.
In closing I’d like to say that BUSH KNEW, WHEN CLINTON LIED NO ONE DIED, and BUSHITLER.[/quote]
[quote]Hannibal King wrote:
That’s what happens when you get a camera with the hopes of uncovering crooked or unlawfull troops. Soldiers don’t take kindly to snitches, or potential snitches.[/quote]
And what makes you think that this is what he was trying to do?
He was a respected journalist, and without him and others like him reporting independently from the Military all we would get is propaganda.
While some journalists are indeed scandal mongers, to tar them all with the same brush is wrong and what you have said above implying that he got what he deserved is quite a despicable statement.
How do these threads end up outside of Politics and World Issues? Can people please post them to the right spots? I avoid that area like the plague because of the stuff in this thread (well, not everyone’s comments, but the Hack comments especially).
[quote]Professor X wrote:
Shouldn’t we be concerned on ALL levels?[/quote]
Yes we should.
About the issue of the vehicle with the reporter, if there is a vehicle in the middle of a firefight, unmarked, so that those firing don’t know whats inside it, this presents a problem. Legal target or not, the civillians should have taken cover and waited for the firefight to end in safety.
Imagine if you are the soldier firing, you see a vehicle and don’t know what is inside it, you will want to take it out before it can harm you.
[quote]Kuz wrote:
How do these threads end up outside of Politics and World Issues? Can people please post them to the right spots? I avoid that area like the plague because of the stuff in this thread (well, not everyone’s comments, but the Hack comments especially).[/quote]
umm… sorry… you are right.
However it seems like the subject line would have deterred you from reading the thread then…
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Shouldn’t we be concerned on ALL levels?
Yes we should.
About the issue of the vehicle with the reporter, if there is a vehicle in the middle of a firefight, unmarked, so that those firing don’t know whats inside it, this presents a problem. Legal target or not, the civillians should have taken cover and waited for the firefight to end in safety.
Imagine if you are the soldier firing, you see a vehicle and don’t know what is inside it, you will want to take it out before it can harm you. [/quote]
It is being claimed that the fire fight was over before he was shot in the head. That changes things completely.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Shouldn’t we be concerned on ALL levels?
Yes we should.
About the issue of the vehicle with the reporter, if there is a vehicle in the middle of a firefight, unmarked, so that those firing don’t know whats inside it, this presents a problem. Legal target or not, the civillians should have taken cover and waited for the firefight to end in safety.
Imagine if you are the soldier firing, you see a vehicle and don’t know what is inside it, you will want to take it out before it can harm you.
It is being claimed that the fire fight was over before he was shot in the head. That changes things completely.[/quote]
It is also said that it was only minutes after the firing stopped.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
lovehunter wrote:
Hack Wilson wrote:
Let me head-off all the anti-war folks before they populate this thread with their idiot/hate-speech:
While the U.S. military is incompetent, the real fault for the man’s death lies with George W. Bush. He RUSHED TO WAR looking for NON-EXISTENT WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. We all know that the war is really about OIL. Therefore we say to you Mr. Bush, “No more blood for oil!” We also know beyond a shadow of a doubt that Bush is liar. We know that BUSH LIED, KIDS DIED. So let me slip that in here, right now.
We also know that Bush is dumb and stupid and he looks like an ape. He is often depicted as BEING a little monkey by the totally non-biased polical cartoonists across this nation which is quickly becoming a fascist state under Bushilter’s evil regime for oil and glorification of Fox News.
After Bush reinstitutes the draft and more KIDS DIE, he will declare martial law and will never leave office. If you don’t belive it, read the PROTOCOLS OF THE ELDERS OF ZION, Volume II. It’s all in there.
In closing I’d like to say that BUSH KNEW, WHEN CLINTON LIED NO ONE DIED, and BUSHITLER.
Dude, you are such a dork.
Unfortunately that is pretty much taken word for word from a number of the frequent posters in the Politics forum.
Not that I endorse Hack trashing a thread with their tripe, but it is funny.[/quote]
this stuff is everywhere. people get pissed off because it’s what they fucking say. they get more pissed off when they realize how fucking stupid it sounds while at the same time…it’s exactly what’s in their tiny little heads.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
TrainerinDC wrote:
Professor X wrote:
Shouldn’t we be concerned on ALL levels?
Yes we should.
About the issue of the vehicle with the reporter, if there is a vehicle in the middle of a firefight, unmarked, so that those firing don’t know whats inside it, this presents a problem. Legal target or not, the civillians should have taken cover and waited for the firefight to end in safety.
Imagine if you are the soldier firing, you see a vehicle and don’t know what is inside it, you will want to take it out before it can harm you.
It is being claimed that the fire fight was over before he was shot in the head. That changes things completely.[/quote]
I’ll be interested to hear the whole story on this. How long had it been over and was it really over? Obviously our troops were still in position so who knows what was going on.
Question from a civilian. If a journalist goes into a known war zone or other hazardous circumstance where there is active battle or other imminently dangerous activities, who, legally, assumes the responsibility for the risk that the journalist is taking to his or her life? (ie: The TV station, the journalists’ home country, the journalists personally?)
Also, is there regulation or control in regard to whom goes into or out of a war zone, and if so, who does this regulation?
Are there rules that the jounalists in war zones are required to abide with, such as they must stay within this or that safe zone, must retreat to a certain place during active battle, etc?
Just to clarify a few things here [my comments are in brackets]:
"A coroner [not some leftwing kook] has recorded a verdict of unlawful killing on ITN reporter Terry Lloyd, who was shot dead by US forces in southern Iraq in March 2003. […]
The coroner is to ask the attorney general to consider pressing charges.
Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he would also be writing to the director of public prosecutions asking for him to investigate the possibility of bringing charges. […]
He and his three colleagues were caught up in a firefight between US and Iraqi forces near the Shatt Al Basra Bridge on 22 March 2003.
After an eight-day inquest Mr Walker cleared ITN of any blame for Mr Lloyd’s death and praised him and his team for their “professionalism and dedication”. [so I guess its in this case not the responsibility of the TV station]
He said it was his view the American tanks had been first to open fire on the ITN crew’s two vehicles.
He added Mr Lloyd would probably have survived the first bullet wound he received, but was killed as he travelled away in a makeshift ambulance. [Hm, that’s what makes me indeed a bit sceptical, as I don’t see what danger can come from a vehicle moving away from the US soldiers]."
But, yeah, shit like that happens in war all the time - I’d say you only have loosers, never any winners. I would put my trust in the British justice system to find out who’s responsible.
[quote]makkun wrote:
[Hm, that’s what makes me indeed a bit sceptical, as I don’t see what danger can come from a vehicle moving away from the US soldiers]."
[/quote]
If they thought enemy fighters were escaping in the vehicle they would shoot at it.
100% correct. Especially if the vehicle is unmarked and those soldiers fighting had not been informed that there were friendlies escaping in the vehicle.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
If they thought enemy fighters were escaping in the vehicle they would shoot at it.
[quote]TrainerinDC wrote:
100% correct. Especially if the vehicle is unmarked and those soldiers fighting had not been informed that there were friendlies escaping in the vehicle.
Zap Branigan wrote:
If they thought enemy fighters were escaping in the vehicle they would shoot at it.[/quote]
Point taken. But:
"[…]It was while he was being taken to hospital in a civilian vehicle that he received a fatal bullet in the head from American guns. The coroner said he had “no doubt” this was “an unlawful act”.
The coroner reserved particular anger for the US soldiers who refused to attend the inquest to give their account. Instead, they gave statements to the court.
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”."
I don’t suppose US troops are under order to shoot the wounded. But, I don’t suppose it will have any consequences, as this didn’t happen under Englis law.
As I said earlier, in wars there are no winners, only loosers.
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”."
Makkun[/quote]
The coroner got statements from the American soldiers but yet he still came to the conclusion that he was purposefully shot. Sorry but I call Bullshit…
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”."
Makkun
The coroner got statements from the American soldiers but yet he still came to the conclusion that he was purposefully shot. Sorry but I call Bullshit…
[/quote]
What does the coroner really do?
A bullet in the head will always be deemed “unlawful” by the coroner won’t it?
Isn’t it is up to the courts to decide further?
Is it different in Britian? Can a coroner just declare someone guilty of a crime?
While the incident certainly bears investigating the coroners opinion really has little bearing.
The coroner rules it was a bullet in the head that killed him and it appears to be the same caliber the American military uses and his part should be done. He really seems to be grandstanding in this case.
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”."
Makkun
The coroner got statements from the American soldiers but yet he still came to the conclusion that he was purposefully shot. Sorry but I call Bullshit…
[/quote]
You weren’t there and you didn’t see the body or the evidence. None of us were. That means no one should be calling ‘bullshit’ on anything until all facts are in…if they ever get in.
Past that, why would you think a coroner would go out of his way to this degree if it was a simple accident?
All we know right now is that a man is dead when all signs are pointing to him not needing to be, at least not from a head shot.
After the lies that surrounded the death of Pat Tillman, I am not going to simply judge things as if we are always right and everyone else is wrong. I don’t see how anyone could before the evidence is in.
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”."
Makkun
The coroner got statements from the American soldiers but yet he still came to the conclusion that he was purposefully shot. Sorry but I call Bullshit…
What does the coroner really do?
A bullet in the head will always be deemed “unlawful” by the coroner won’t it?
Isn’t it is up to the courts to decide further?
Is it different in Britian? Can a coroner just declare someone guilty of a crime?
While the incident certainly bears investigating the coroners opinion really has little bearing.
The coroner rules it was a bullet in the head that killed him and it appears to be the same caliber the American military uses and his part should be done. He really seems to be grandstanding in this case.[/quote]
A coroner determines cause of death and sometimes, even the weapon used in that death by often measuring the wound tract and surrounding evidence. This is compiled by criminal investigations when a death is ruled as ‘suspicious’ (not the same as a death by enemy gunfire). That means, yes, his opinion is a valid one and does have merit in a court of law, however, it is weighed against all evidence.