January 06, 2004
CIAR/LIAR
The Guardian’s Ciar Byrne makes an appalling accusation:
The killing of Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana, who was shot dead by US troops in August for filming outside an Iraqi prison, provoked outrage.
This is a lie. Jason Van Steenwyk, serving in Iraq, responds:
Mazen Dana was killed when he went downrange during a firefight, turned around, hefted something on his shoulder, and foolishly aimed it in the direction of a tank’s gunnery optics.
For The Guardian to use the construction “shot dead by US troops for filming outside an Iraqi prison,” implicitly alleging that the shooting was, in effect, calculated murder, is quite simply beyond the pale of responsible journalism.
The Guardian should be ashamed of itself.
Should be. Won’t be, however. The Guardian doesn’t care.
Posted by Tim Blair at January 6, 2004 11:36 AMA reuters report on the latest attack (the one with Jihadis masquerading(?) as press) has an almost verbatim quote at the end of the story. But they mention the camera, but still use loaded language, "In August, award-winning Reuters cameraman Mazen Dana was shot dead by a U.S. soldier as he filmed in a town on the western outskirts of Baghdad. The U.S. military said the soldier who killed him believed his camera was a grenade launcher."
I wonder if I'll be remembered as an award winning welder and machinist?
Kal
Hmmmmm, second thought, it's not verbatim, either I screwed up, or I googled a different version than the one I first read. With my memory odds are good either way.
Kal
Posted by: Kalroy at January 6, 2004 at 11:53 AMWhere if you throw stones at a Guardian reporter, you'll get 1000 words of understanding.
Posted by: Mike G at January 6, 2004 at 12:17 PMQuadrant's megaboring film writer Neil McDonald has been drivelling on about the US deliberately killing journalistss in Iraq. Why not send Quadrant an e-mail about it at quadrantmonthly@ozemail.com.au ?
Posted by: sue at January 6, 2004 at 12:28 PMThese leftist scum completely count on our efforts at protecting them & at defeating or keeping at bay the terrorists, even as the leftists opportunistically make political & propaganda hay of our efforts. Whole countries, whose butts we have saved in the past, are behaving that way, scavenging for influence by hampering the Coalition’s extraordinary efforts to head off extraordinary threats to civilization, threats that they recognize perfectly well & count on our neutralizing, even as they foment rage against us for doing so.
Posted by: ForNow at January 6, 2004 at 12:50 PMWith all that said, I can see how shooting Western journalists probably contributes positively to the security situation in Iraq.
Posted by: Alan Anderson at January 6, 2004 at 01:06 PMThe world was a simplier place when "journalists" could take bribes and coverup for Saddam.
Posted by: perfectsense at January 6, 2004 at 01:07 PMAs Denis Boyles pointed out in his memorable article Bizarro Broadcasting Company http://www.nationalreview.com/nr_comment/nr_comment072903.asp, now at NRO, originally April 7, 2003, Duck Season
Baghdad has been Saddamized for decades, so the World Service is just piling on. And while most Iraqis obviously don't like their brutal government, along the streets and down the alleys of Baghdad, there are some pretty crazy people getting their news tonight from the likes of Wood, Gilligan, and the others at the BBC. The Americans will return tomorrow and the next day and the next and the next. Soon, they will be everywhere in Iraq, trying to rebuild the place. But one day, one of those crazy teenagers they produce over there might remember the World Service interview with the Palestinian guy, or that Iraqi mullah's call for jihad. Maybe he'll grab a gun and go out to welcome the British and American newcomers — and get shot before he blows anybody away. Some hopeless, misguided young BBC correspondent, riding his big Scoop moment, will report it on the World Service as an outrage.
And the Guardian goes on like the BBC & Susan Block. Who is really getting people killed? On whose hands is the blood?
Posted by: ForNow at January 6, 2004 at 01:25 PMNote to self: Try really bloody hard not to wander around a war zone with something that has a strong resemblance to a rocket launcher. If that proves difficult, then at least DON'T point it at armed men already involved in a gun battle.
Somebody should have mentioned this to the poor guy. I do not wish to make light of his death (too much) but given where he was you would think he could have given his own saftey more consideration
Posted by: Jake D at January 6, 2004 at 01:33 PMClearly this was a criminal act. The only debate is whether it was murder or manslaughter. If you want to accept the view that it was a mistake, that's fine. But it's still a crime.
From The Independent:
The American army admitted yesterday that its soldiers killed an award-winning Reuters cameraman. Mazen Dana, a Palestinian, was shot dead by a US tank crew at close range while trying to film outside Baghdad's Abu Ghraib prison on Sunday, after a mortar attack on the prison.
The Americans claimed that the soldiers mistook the camera Mr Dana was holding for a rocket-propelled grenade launcher - a claim that was immediately rejected by journalists who witnessed the killing.
"We were all there, for at least half an hour. They knew we were journalists," said Stephan Breitner of France 2 television. "After they shot Mazen, they aimed their guns at us. I don't think it was an accident. They are very tense. They are crazy. They are young soldiers and they don't understand what is happening."
Mr Dana's driver, Munzer Abbas, said: "There were many journalists around. They knew we were journalists. This was not an accident."
Mr Dana's colleagues said the tank was 30 metres from him when it opened fire. Television cameras do not look like RPG launchers: at such close range it should have been impossible to confuse the two.
A senior US Army spokesman offered condolences to Mr Dana's family, but said soldiers would not fire warning shots when they believed they were under threat. Lt-Col Guy Shields said: "I can't give you details on the rules of engagement, but the enemy is not in formations, they are not wearing uniforms. During wartime, firing a warning shot is not a necessity. There is no time for a warning shot if there is potential for an ambush."
The Reuters team had identified themselves to American soldiers guarding the perimeter of the prison, and they had been given permission to film. Nael al-Shyouki, a Reuters soundman working with Mr Dana, said: "After we filmed, we went into the car and prepared to go when a convoy led by a tank arrived and Mazen stepped out of the car to film. I followed him and Mazen walked three to four metres. We were noted and seen clearly." He said the American soldiers "saw us and they knew about our identities and mission".
Mr Shyouki described the killing: "A soldier on the tank shot at us. I lay on the ground. I heard Mazen and I saw him scream and touching his chest. I cried at the soldier, telling him, 'you killed a journalist'. They shouted at me and asked me to step back and I said, 'I will step back but please help, please help and stop the bleed'."
The soldiers did try to help but could do nothing. "Mazen took a last breath and died before my eyes," said Mr Shyouki. The 43-year-old cameraman leaves a wife and four children. "He was supposed to be going home today," a Reuters colleague said yesterday.
Mr Dana is the second Reuters cameraman to be killed by US forces in Baghdad. Taras Protsyuk, a Ukrainian, died when a tank fired a shell into the Hotel Palestine, which was full of journalists, as Baghdad was falling. In both cases, witnesses accused the US of knowingly killing a journalist.
Mr Dana was no novice in war zones. His hometown, Hebron in the West Bank, is a dangerous place. In 2001, he won the Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) International Press Freedom Award for his work in Hebron. He was shot three times in 2000.
Reuters, the CPJ and Reporters Sans Frontières in Paris called on the American military to conduct a full inquiry into Mr Dana's death.
Posted by: Nemesis at January 6, 2004 at 02:06 PMNemesis, in order to prove murder or manslaughter it is necessary to prove what was going through the mind of the person aiming and firing the tanks gun, not what the witnesses thought should be going through his head.
I would suggest trying to prove the gunner committed a negligent or wilful act resulting in the death of the cameraman, considering the circumstances surrounding the incident, would be a fools errand.
Posted by: Gilly at January 6, 2004 at 02:27 PMNemesis, it's a crime...where? Oz? U.S? Let's temporarily accept the premise that it is manslaughter. Except, it happened in Iraq. Is it actionable under provisional Iraqi law? I don't know. Do you? I mean, from your post, you're guilty of some crime, somewhere, at least for mouthing off, or being a etardray with a made-up email address.
And where the fuck do you come from that guilt is decided from one newspaper account? You said it, loser: crime.
Posted by: Dylan at January 6, 2004 at 02:28 PMHere are some pictures I posted wayyyyyyyyyy back in August when Dana was killed:
http://4rwws.blogspot.com/2003_08_17_4rwws_archive.html#106124397223870553
My Democrat neighbor said: "The soldiers were reckless. The weapons have round apertures. Dana's was rectangular."
Oh.
Posted by: Tim at January 6, 2004 at 02:29 PM"Clearly this was a criminal act. The only debate is whether it was murder or manslaughter. If you want to accept the view that it was a mistake, that's fine. But it's still a crime. "
What utter crap.
The niceties of civil law do not apply in combat.
This is recognised by international law, the geneva conventions etc.
It is tragic that the guy died, but what did he think was going to happen when he stood downrange from a tank and pointed a bulky object (with what looked like a barrel on it) at the tank?
Was it murder? no, was it manslaughter? no - it was simply a mistake in combat. they happen and he contributed to it.
Oh and try recoginising the RPG V the camera from 30 meters when bullets are flying past you, funnily enough the stress of combat makes it a fairly tough job.
Posted by: Harry Tuttle at January 6, 2004 at 02:31 PMSorry - got the link wrong.
And like Harry said above, those images would be more like blurry profiles at 30 meters with bullets flying on a dusty road peering out of an armored vehicle.
Posted by: Tim at January 6, 2004 at 02:39 PMNemesis:
In Washington DC, there's a place called the Newseum, dedicated to the history of journalism.
Last year, they had an exhibit focusing on war correspondents. Over the years, quite a few have been killed, in the course of doing their jobs. Bernard Fall, frex.
I don't believe that there has EVER been a case where the killing of a journalist in the course of doing his duties on a battlefield was made into a criminal case. (This is different, of course, from picking up a journalist and killing him in a backstreet or somesuch.)
Just curious, though: Have you contributed to the Danny Pearl fund? You know who he is, right? The Joooooooooo reporter who was executed on tape in a case of deliberate, first-degree murder. No accident. No mistake. Murdered.
I look forward to hearing your reaction to that particular case.
Posted by: Dean at January 6, 2004 at 04:13 PMNot all accidental deaths result in manslaughter charges. I regard both deaths as accidental.
I've heard the death in the extremely vigorously disputed territories was intended as a warning shot. Oh, and the soldier involved was of arabic descent. Surely you can find some "root causes", right?
Posted by: Andjam at January 6, 2004 at 08:00 PMA Quick Test of Camera vs Anti-Tank Missile launchers, only to make it easy you get to see them at 5 metres, not 30.
Then there's a picture of an RPG at 10 metres so you can study it at leisure.
It’s rather hard to believe that those calling it murder or a crime are sincere.
Posted by: ForNow at January 7, 2004 at 12:50 AMIt’s rather hard to believe that those calling it murder or a crime are sincere.
Yes, I think you have a good point, ForNow. It would be tempting to disregard Nemesis's (is that right?) statement and consider only his/her character deficiencies and lack of intelligence. But we cannot assume these things. But I do think we can fairly assume that such an argument can only be generate by someone uninterested in honest debate of the matter. That being said, Nemesis does appear to be a complete waste of our precious carbon and water resources.
Posted by: Tongue Boy at January 7, 2004 at 02:56 AMIt could have been murder. It could have been manslaughter. It could have been ordered. It could have been a purely tragic and accidental fog-of-war mistake.
Probably only the shooter and his colleagues know. Ciar Byrne surely doesn't.
Posted by: Tim at January 7, 2004 at 02:57 AMI think a good gift for the President would be a chocolate revolver. And since he's so busy, you'd probably have to run up to him real quick and hand it to him. - "Deep Thoughts" by Jack Handy (from Saturday Night Live)That's a great idea! It would probably work with troops in a fire-fight, too. Mmmm...chocolate AK47. Posted by: Ernie G at January 7, 2004 at 02:59 AM
I was once shot at by a double-barreled shotgun. Having said that, I have far more sympathy for soldiers (and cops) and for what they do under active-fire conditions. I suggest that nememsis, reporters and others, who like to critize after the fact, consider that maybe, just maybe, a person's perceptions are changed when they're being shot at. And if the they don't find that acceptable then stay out of war zones.
Posted by: rabidfox at January 7, 2004 at 03:49 AMNote the key gap in the story:
The Reuters team had identified themselves to American soldiers guarding the perimeter of the prison, and they had been given permission to film. Nael al-Shyouki, a Reuters soundman working with Mr Dana, said: "After we filmed, we went into the car and prepared to go when a convoy led by a tank arrived and Mazen stepped out of the car to film. I followed him and Mazen walked three to four metres. We were noted and seen clearly." He said the American soldiers "saw us and they knew about our identities and mission".
Mr Shyouki described the killing: "A soldier on the tank shot at us.
By their own account, the soldier doing the shooting arrived after they had identified themselves to a separate group of soldiers, and after they were done filming. All that soldier saw was an unidentified civilian take something very suspicious out of a car and point it at him and his crew. The implication/accusation that the soldier who shot the cameraman knew he was a journalist is false, based on their own testimony.
Clearly this was a criminal act. The only debate is whether it was murder or manslaughter. If you want to accept the view that it was a mistake, that's fine. But it's still a crime.
Even if you are right (and you aren't), a reasonable belief that one is in imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury is always an affirmative defense to either charge. If a jury believed (as it is highly probable that they would) that, taking into account the totality of the circumstances, the soldier who shot Dana genuinely believed he was in such danger, he would be acquitted.
My guess is that the jury wouldn't deliberate more than an hour.
Posted by: Dodd at January 8, 2004 at 08:05 AM