Lilly
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
i had this emailed to me today, so i can't put the link, but here's the full article. long, but VERY interesting.
U.S. negligence is killing journalists
Mark Kingwell
National Post
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
>American soldiers are killing journalists in Iraq now, which is
>either a bold escalation of the Bush Administration's War on
>Criticism or a result of frustration and fatigue, I can't decide
>which. Lucky for me I'm writing this from the comfort and safety of
>my Toronto office-bunker, so not at great risk of not-so-friendly
>fire from trigger-happy troops.
>
>I admit the attacks took me by surprise. After all, the journalists
>covering the war have done their level best to pose no threat to
>anyone or anything, let alone the truth. Never before have reporters
>been so docile, so (to infringe Fox's trademark) "fair and
>balanced," in their coverage of an unpopular war, rallying and
>cheering and bending their necks to the stroke of Ari Fleischer's
>verbal lash. Embedded newsies succumbed to severe attacks of
>gear-envy, jock-sniffing and manhood-diminution. The main injuries
>they suffered were bruises from the scramble to abase themselves in
>front of real men, the ones with guns.
>
>You'd think even a flailing administration, baffled by growing
>opposition and plummeting approval ratings, would be happy with such
>uncritical coverage. But clearly it was not enough. Bad news is a
>constant danger, like sunburn and insect bites. And of course,
>Reuters is an independent agency and might have some "anti-American"
>agenda, like accurately reporting the news. Something had to give.
>
>Oh, I'm kidding. I know the soldiers didn't kill the journalist
>deliberately. Or rather, they did kill him deliberately, but not
>because he was a threat. Or rather, he was a threat in their minds,
>but not just because he briefly appeared to be. Or rather, it was
>just because he briefly appeared to be, but not because they were
>wrong about that. Or rather, they were wrong about that, but
>sometimes a video camera does look like a lethal weapon, doesn't it?
>Or rather, it doesn't look like a lethal weapon, but it just might
>be one, and who says shoot first and ask questions later doesn't
>make sense?
>
>Mazen Dana, a 43-year-old cameraman with the Reuters news agency,
>was shot and killed on Sunday as he was videotaping near a U.S.-run
>prison on the outskirts of Baghdad. The soldiers, firing from two
>patrolling tanks, say they mistook his camera for a rocket-propelled
>grenade launcher, which is also a piece of metal equipment sometimes
>carried on the shoulder. The press advocacy groups Reporters Without
>Borders, based in France, and the Committee to Protect Journalists,
>based in the United States, have demanded a full investigation. This
>is the second death of a Reuters journalist in less than a week,
>which might have an effect on future recruitment efforts.
>
>Now let's be clear -- as clear as we were urged to be when some
>adrenalized U.S. Air National Guard fighter jocks dropped a
>500-pound bomb on some Princess Pats in Afghanistan last year,
>killing four and seriously injuring eight others. Yes, there is such
>a thing as the fog of war. And yes, accidents happen. And yes, yes,
>all people, combatant or not, who voluntarily enter a war zone are
>implicitly accepting its dangers.
>
>All true. And yet, and yet.
>
>The press groups are charging the U.S. soldiers with "negligence,"
>and there is certainly a case to be made for that. Unlike the
>Afghanistan incident, this error occurred in broad daylight. Fellow
>journalists say the military personnel on site were aware of their
>presence. "We had been there for half an hour" when Mr. Dana was
>targeted and shot, said one. A video camera is a about the size and
>shape of a briefcase, whereas a RPG is launched with a narrow tube
>about four feet long. The Oxford English Dictionary defines
>negligence as lack of attention or care. Mr. Dana was probably
>wishing for either less attention or more care when the soldiers
>opened up on him, but yes, negligence, I think so.
>
>The problem, however, as with the disgruntled grunt from the Third
>Infantry Division who called for Donald Rumsfeld's resignation a few
>weeks back, is that the individuals will be punished and the
>situation left untouched. We all know that the cracks in the
>U.S.-led invasion of Iraq have been showing for weeks, that this
>latest death is not just another casualty of war but a clear warning
>things are likely to get much, much worse. Britain rages in a
>controversy over the puffed-up arguments for this illegal war, with
>Prime Minister Tony Blair's closest aides now admitting liberties
>were taken in presenting information to Parliament.
>
>And still -- I know, you're tired of hearing it, but still -- no
>weapons of mass destruction have been found.
>
>Meanwhile, the situation on the ground grows bloodier by the day.
>
>Resistance within Iraq is stiffening, now attacking civilian targets
>as well as coalition troops. In the past week, saboteurs blew up a
>large oil pipeline to Turkey three days after it reopened, a water
>main was bombed in Baghdad and a sewage plant was set on fire. The
>police chief of Mosul was shot and two other officers were killed in
>an ambush; a Danish soldier died in a bomb blast; some American
>soldiers were shot as they left a restaurant; an attack on the
>United Nations headquarters in Baghdad left 17 dead, including the
>UN's top official there. "Every American needs to believe this,"
>said General Ricardo Sanchez, the head of U.S. forces in Iraq, "that
>if we fail here in this environment, the next battlefield will be
>the streets of America."
>
>That's nonsense, but it contains a hint of truth. The death of Mazen
>Dana is a small but sure sign that the Americans are already failing
>in that "environment." The real question now is not whether they can
>succeed -- they can't -- but whether they can even withdraw without
>a lot more deadly "negligence."
>
>No matter what they do, or when, it's too late for Mazen Dana.