Resonant Information - Eason Jordan and the names of 12 journalists "deliberately targeted" by US troops - Comments

Final note

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:50:08 -0500

This discussion has brought up a lot of interesting, useful information, which I'm quite happy to leave as a record of counterpoint, but it's moving well astray of the original point of this entry, which was to show that Eason Jordan had cause to believe what he said. This hasn't changed, nor has the subsequent discussion about whether he was right affected this primary point.

Unfortunately, I don't have unlimited time to continue a discussion into every detail of every incident, and I find that I am now simply repeating myself when I answer, so I am closing the comments to further entries. I have already spent much more time here than I intended. For those interested in both sides of the issues, I strongly encourage you to read through all of the links yourself, both in the main entry, and in the comments.

For those that stopped in with additional information, thanks again for your efforts. My largest issue with those attacking Eason Jordan was that they didn't do the work that you have done (see my original "Closing comments" section in the main entry), and if I've inspired people to actually think about the matter, rather than just jumping on the bandwagon, I'm satisfied with the outcome.

Quick notes

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:35:54 -0500

A few quick things, and then I have to move on:

Your USA Today link is a pretty clear example of what's wrong with embedded reporting: everything in it is hearsay, being fed to the journalist from the military. The journalist states up front that he had no idea what had happened at the time because the military concealed it from him, and then he only reports afterwards what the military told him about it. The ITN investigation is more interesting. But that's only of passing interest because...

Quoting Anonymous:

It totally destroys its utility in your original point...that the US military targets journalists

Argh, no, for the third time, that's not my original point, though perhaps I need to go back up top and clarify, since the conclusion is at the bottom of the entry: the point is that Eason Jordan had cause to believe what he said was true.

Just for the record

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 13:21:52 -0500

I'm pretty forgiving when it comes to heat of the moment rough-housing. Naturally, if you think someone is an enemy you aren't going to be nice to them, especially if (a) you think they were shooting at you, and (b) they are not cooperating while being rounded up.

I have no problem with an elbow to the head or trowing them around a bit if thats what it takes to detain them.

The thing that disturbs me is when we get news reports of people winding up in the hospital with broken ribs.

The Pentagon issued a stateme

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 12:49:13 -0500

The Pentagon issued a statement, sometime around the start of hostilities, something to the effect that they could not guarantee the safety of any people sent into the war zone, embedded or not.

I have tried for the last hour or so to find the exact statement issued, but have not. It most likely makes no difference.

I can only tell you that from the standpoint of a Soldier who has been in a combat zone, where people are trying to kill him, it is most times, shoot first and ask questions later. No matter how well trained he is or even if he knows its possible innocent people might be killed or wounded, survival instinct and protecting your soldiers, rules the day.

Also, the more powerful your weapons, the more damage is done in a very short time. The old reliable, 50 cal can tear a car up in a heartbeat, destroy a frame house in a few minutes. It can also do equal damage to anything behind or around the target.

Imagine giving the troops weapons that make the 50 look like a large rifle. You will get massive damage very very quickly. Anyone in the general vicinity is going to be in dire danger of losing his life or being wounded. Couple that with troops that are excited, driven by fear, rage or just saturated with adrenaline. This of course applies to both sides of the warring parties. Even more so if the person is not very well trained.

In those circumstances and conditions, nobody in the zone is remotely safe and it is impossible to "protect them".

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Rage

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:53:04 -0500

Quoting Papa Ray:

In the heat of the battle, moment or in the rage of finally getting ahold of the enemy, it is difficult NOT to take that rage out on him.

Or on the reporter that you think might be providing "comfort" by way of publishing a viewpoint hostile to your cause? Or someone you picked up who you think might be an enemy, because they happened to be nearby when the dust cleared? That's exactly the problem, you see. If that behaviour is being accepted or even endorsed, then there really is a lot of merit to the accusation that the military considers journalists fair targets.

Quoting Papa Ray:

Right, wrong, thats just the way it is in combat.

There's a lot of merit to this, unfortunately. Wars are ugly, psychologically damaging to everyone involved, and the boys with the guns are under a frightful amount of strain. Were it up to me, even if everything that happened was properly investigated, I'd assign only the bare minimum of responsibility to the soldiers on the ground, all the way up to and including the events at Abu Ghraib. Dishonorable discharge for conduct unbecoming or failing to refuse an illegal order, perhaps, but not jail time. The ones that set the policies and gave the orders, however (which are the ones that get away free in the current system), I'd like to throw the book at.

But that said, if it's happening, it's happening, and there's no call to rage at someone for pointing it out.

Here is an excerpt from anoth

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:47:18 -0500

Here is an excerpt from another link about the Lloyd incident
http://www.arabmediawatch.com/modules.php?name=News&file=print&sid=1194

"The Journal article cited a report from a British security firm commissioned by ITN to investigate the incident saying that Lloyd's car was hit by both coalition and Iraqi fire; the latter most likely came from behind the car, possibly after the vehicle had crashed.

The report concluded that "[t]he Iraqis no doubt mounted an attack using the ITN crew as cover, or perhaps stumbled into the U.S. forces whilst attempting to detain the ITN crew." The report also speculated that Nerac and Othman, who were last seen by Demoustier in another car being stopped by Iraqi forces—might have been pulled out of their car before it came under fire from coalition forces, and then Iraqi forces used the SUV to attack the coalition forces.
...
In September, London's The Daily Mirror newspaper reported the testimony of an Iraqi man named Hamid Aglan who had allegedly tried to rescue the wounded Lloyd in a civilian minibus.
...
An ITN spokesperson told CPJ that a number of elements of Aglan's story are not consistent with ITN's own investigation. "

End of excerpt.

Algan the discredited is the source of the conspiracy theory versions of the story.

This doesn't have any specific mention of what Iraqi forces were involved , but it happened in the sector of the Iraqi 6th Armored (tank) Division of the Iraqi third corps. Note:This link was written before DNA evidence support for Othman being killed while inside an Iraqi vehicle. The fact that at least one of the deceased was in Iraqi military custody makes clear that there were Iraqi forces operating in the immediate vicinity at the same time. Also worth noting was that NO DNA evidence was found for Nerac, and given the US military investigation, the British military investigation, the British police investigation and ITN's private civilian investigation, and is highly likely that if it were there it would have been found. They DNA'd everything they found...and didn't find Nerac. That at least raises the strong possibility that he was 'disappeared' while in Iraqi custody.

This is from an embed with the unit involved:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2004-04-07-baghdad-intoiraq_x.htm

Three journalists and a translator employed by Britain's Independent Television News, driving two rented Mitsubishi Pajeros with the taped letters "TV" prominently affixed to the vehicles' roofs and sides, blundered into the Iraqi charge.

The Marines destroyed one of the journalist's vehicles and fired on another. The British journalist Terry Lloyd was shot dead although it's unclear whether he was killed by Marines or Iraqi fighters. The French cameraman, Fred Nerac, and the Lebanese driver and translator, Hussein Osman, are still missing. The first Marine investigators to the scene were themselves injured as fighting continued. Today, the U.S. and British military investigations remain incomplete. "We are waiting for the results," ITN spokesman Saskia Wirth says. "It is still too early to draw any conclusions."

Nobody questions the American tankers' right, even duty, to fire on the frightened journalists as they raced toward what they believed to be friendly forces. But the tank battalion's official history describes the blunder callously, stating, "It didn't even occur to any of us that journalists would try to participate in an Iraqi suicide charge."

Twice, I asked Capt. Poland what happened at the bridge. He told the story with gusto, omitting the fact at least one journalist was dead. Col. Chartier reported the accident to Gen. James Mattis, who promised to investigate. But he and Poland kept me in the dark. That night, Chartier was telling Poland the plan when Poland hushed him, aware I was standing almost invisibly in a deep shadow near them. I heard nothing.

"We did not kill any journalists but at that time we thought maybe we had," Chartier told me recently. "I just didn't need that going out right at that moment."
End of excerpt.
Other parts of the article make it clear that the unit was involved with Iraqi tank forces.

With regard to the roadblock incident, I dispute your disputation of the timeline. How long do you think between happened between the soldiers destroying the vehicle ramming through the checkpoint and the reporters vehicle being hit? According to the reports, it happened at essentially the same moment...even to the point that the military thinking it was bullets aimed at one vehicle hitting another. It wasn't like 5 minutes later that the journalists were fired on.

You're right that fleeing from fighting is 'expected' but you are wrong that it is not 'suspicious' Suspicious is judged from the perspective of those behind the trigger. And a second vehicle parked in line at a checkpoint starting to drive at essentially the same moment as another vehicle tries to ram through is absolutely suspicious. And if you think it isn't, it was clear that the line was over an hour long, which means there were a lot of vehicles parked waiting to be searched. How come only the journalists were hit? If that was an 'expected' reaction and the 'expected' reaction got people killed, how come that entire checkpoint was not a massacre of innocents? The TV journalists made themselves stand out at exactly the wrong time in exactly the wrong way. In fact, the "TV" emblazened on their car could easily have worked to their disadvantage at that point because that is exactly the behavior expected from terrorists hiding behind TV painted on their car.

As for the hotel balcony, I absolutely added something you didn't include. The context. Your writeup tries to make it seem like there was some conspiracy to kill journalists by denying information about where journalists are. It is VERY clear that the journalists were mistaken for Iraqi artillery spotters. Do you dispute this?

Because if you do accept that, it totally destroys its utility in your original point...that the US military targets journalists. And that is why you glossed over relevant facts...to try to turn something that is not supportive of your arguement into something that is.

Furthermore, you and others are operating under the false assumption that the military has some sort of responsibility for non-embedded journalists. They are no different that any other non combatant. The military is not responsible for keeping track of where they are and taking special steps to avoid them. The military can't deliberately target the media, as you and Eason are trying to argue they do, but beyond that there is nothing. The arguement that some higher HQ knew there were journalists there but didn't tell them is irrelevant. They were busying trying to fight a war. Their information and communication channels were (or should be) dedicated to where friendly and Iraqi forces are. Their job is to accomplish their mission with minimum possible number of coalition casualties. Keeping track of journalists behind enemy lines doesn't (or shouldn't) figure into that.

Interesting

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:40:28 -0500

That quote seems to contradict Demoustier's description, but it's certainly interesting to add to the collection. Thanks.

Beating up the Enemy Yes,

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:39:49 -0500

Beating up the Enemy

Yes, that has happened, it happened in my war, several times to my personal knowledge. I even used the butt of my weapon to knock the crap out a VC that had just wounded two of my men.

In the heat of the battle, moment or in the rage of finally getting ahold of the enemy, it is difficult NOT to take that rage out on him.

Our unit never killed prisoners, but I am sure it happened (Sir, they were trying to escape)!

Right, wrong, thats just the way it is in combat.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

Did you see this? As in almos

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:20:50 -0500

Did you see this? As in almost all cases in a war zone, its a very dangerous place, no matter who you are. Being in the area, you can be killed for many reasons or any reason. The explanations, excuses, reasons may vary with each incident and with who you talked to. Two people at the same incident may give different versions of what happened. Keep all this in mind when reading any of this.

For example:

"The report concluded that "[t]he Iraqis no doubt mounted an attack using the ITN crew as cover, or perhaps stumbled into the U.S. forces whilst attempting to detain the ITN crew." The report also speculated that the missing journalists—Nerac and Othman, who were last seen by Demoustier in another car being stopped by Iraqi forces—might have been pulled out of their car before it came under fire from coalition forces, and then Iraqi forces used the SUV to attack the coalition forces".
http://www.cpj.org/cases03/mideast_cases03/iraq.html

This is one example where different stories and different conclusions are drawn later. The reporters are still dead, and a war zone is still a place where you don't want to be if you don't want to be killed or wounded.

I once asked a reporter who had came in on a re-supply run for a quick look at our AO (because we had just been in a two day firefight [1968]) "What the hell are you doing here, don't you know we could be attacked again at any time"? His answer was: " This is where the story is". So the story was more important to him than his life.

Papa Ray
West Texas
USA

100,000 figure

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:20:42 -0500

If you think this is about whether or not America is the bad guy, you've missed the point. See my other comments.

The 100,000 figure is from a study published in The Lancet, and is actually likely to be low.

Killed Journalists

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:09:52 -0500

This is an incredible amount of 'work' to reach a conclusion that you had already reached. America is the bad guy. " we have most likely killed over a hundred thousand civilians in Iraq.." Would you care to dig up all their names and the circumstances of their deaths? Would this ethereal number include any people who might have like had..you know...guns and rpg's? Jerk!

Slander vs sloppiness

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 11:06:26 -0500

It's certainly nothing to be happy about, one way or the other. What distinguishes slander from sloppiness, however, is that slander derives from something the speaker doesn't believe is true (and in fact, when it is a matter of public concern, the plaintiff in a slander case must actively prove that the allegations are false). I think Eason Jordan believed what he was saying, from having heard the same reports that I had heard. As you can see from the other comments, there's a lot of room to wrangle over whether he's actually right (and even I don't believe that all twelve fatalities listed above are likely to be deliberate), but the preservation of free speech requires that one allow for statements made in good faith — even if the speaker turns out to be too inept to defend the statements without outside help.

very good work and...

Anonymous — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 10:39:01 -0500

... the problem most folks have with Jordan is not that he may have lied but that he has not bothered to present even a fraction of the data you have compiled. To you that's 'annoying'. To others, it's pure slander.

Clarification

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 03:23:24 -0500

If you give the military the benefit of the doubt in each case, these are plausible explanations, sure. Lacking a public investigation, however, it's hard to fault someone for not giving them the benefit of the doubt, given the other things that keep leaking out.

I'm quite curious about something, however:

Quoting Anonymous:

Mazen Dana killed - Misidentification. A shoulder fired rocket launcher and a TV camera can look pretty similar when viewed from head on at 30 meters. He was fired on by a convoy just arriving at the scene so it is irrelevent that he was at the scene for 30 minutes prior.

Do you have a reference for this? That it's a freshy arrived convoy is certainly significant, if true.

Also, as I mentioned in a previous comment, I was envisioning fire from an angle, not front to rear, when I originally wrote the comment about bad aim, but certainly front to rear straight through the windshields is plausible. (As an aside, I'm a tolerable marksman with both a pistol and a rifle, though I'll never win any contests of speed. With only simple training and casual practice I can reliably hit man-sized target with a Ruger 22/45 at about 30', and I expect that trained soldiers with better gear would do much better. Of course, I have the advantage of not being shot at while I'm practicing.)

Also:

Quoting Anonymous:

My big concern is that the US military seems to have a habit of beating up captured journalists that it thinks are enemy. One has to wonder then, if it is commonplace for the military to abuse captured personnel who really are enemies.

Judging from the results of the ACLU FOIA request, the answer is yes. If you're wondering why people like myself are deeply, deeply suspicious when things go consistently wrong, that's why.

But if you're focusing on trying to engender doubt that the military was responsible for one death or another, you're missing the point of this. I'm not trying to convict soldiers here; I'm demonstrating that it's entirely possible for someone (Eason Jordan, specifically) who has been given this information to honestly believe that the military was deliberately targeting journalists, and say so.

Thanks for your comments

Zed — Mon, 07 Feb 2005 02:45:49 -0500

I wish the other responses were as thoughtful.

A few notes: where do you find reference to the ITN vehicles being between tanks? It's a bit late at night for me to go back through the sources, but I had been given the impression that they were near, but not directly between the US tanks and Iraqi soldiers (I didn't see any reference to Iraqi tanks on this even, either, nor did I see reference to the ITV vehicle taking hits from both sides). Also, note that the "military vehicle" line refers to someone having taken the journalists out of their car after it was hit in the first place, and then subsequently placed in the vehicle. Certainly, you can't blame the military for shooting at an Iraqi military vehicle subsequently (even if it was just evacuating wounded), but the concern is for shooting at marked ITV vehicle in the first place. Also, Terry Lloyd was in a civilian van taking him to the hospital when that, too, was fired upon by a US helicopter. If, in fact, the ITV vehicle was taking tank fire from both sides, I'm surprised anything was found at all, much less several people actually getting into rescue vehicles. If you find the reference to the tanks, I'll mark it.

Also, trying to get away from an area where bullets are flying isn't "suspicious", it's expected. You've also fudged the timing here; a vehicle ran the barricade, and was shot at, then the reporters ran back to their clearly marked vehicle, got into it, and were then shot down. Note that these are people who had gone so far as to contact the US military about their presence and gotten permission before filming. It's a bit of a jump to say that the military would then turn around and say, "Those journalists are suspicious for avoiding gunfire! Shoot them!"

As for the hotel balcony, you haven't added anything not already noted by my given links; the question is why the troops were never notified about where the independent journalists were staying, and whether that decision was deliberate.

Keep in mind that the US military took very good care of the journalists that were embedded with them because they were carefully set up to only report positive things, with all reports passing through the military for alteration before being printed. They weren't reporters anymore; they were US propaganda tools. Some of the reporters involved came out afterwards and apologized for taking part in the sham after they realized exactly what it was (this should be googleable, but it's too late for me to hunt for them tonight). The journalists killed by the US weren't in the category of "anyone with a notepad"; they were trained journalists with their professional equipment representing the only free press in the region.

Eason Jordan and the names of 12 journalists "deliberately targeted" by US troops

Zed — Thu, 03 Feb 2005 01:31:52 -0500

There's been a small storm of protest over CNN chief news executive Eason Jordan accusing the US military not only of killing 12 journalists, but doing it deliberately. That's the kind of statement that really requires a bit of preparation, so it's quite annoying that he seems to have bungled the job of defending something I suspect is true. Let's go over the list of reporters attacked by the US, and see how many could fit that description.