The U.S. military said on Friday it was still processing a request by Reuters for video footage from U.S. helicopters and other materials relating to the killing of two Iraqi staff in Baghdad a year ago.
Reuters photographer Namir Noor-Eldeen, 22, and driver Saeed Chmagh, 40, were killed in a U.S. helicopter air strike in eastern Baghdad on July 12, 2007.
Reuters wants all the materials to be able to study what happened. Access to the video, taken from helicopters involved in the attack, could also help improve Reuters’ safety policies in Iraq, the world’s most dangerous country for journalists.
Noor-Eldeen and Chmagh had gone to eastern Baghdad after hearing of a military raid on a building around dawn that day, and were with a group of men at the time. It is believed two or three of these men may have been carrying weapons, although witnesses said none were assuming a hostile posture.Video from two U.S. Apache helicopters and photographs taken of the scene were shown to Reuters editors in Baghdad on July 25, 2007 in an off-the-record briefing.
U.S. military officers who presented the materials said Reuters had to make a request under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to get copies. This request was made the same day.
Reuters has not received any formal response in nearly a year.
Reuters is still waiting. The Army is still stonewalling.
The obsessive secrecy of the Bush administration reminds me of the old Soviet Union.
They will most likely never get the video, and it doesn’t matter if they do.
Why? The answer to this problem is the military forewarning all the journalist in the field of an impending attack. That will never happen because it will be the same as warning the enemy of an impending attack.
Journalist: “Um, I’ve gotta go…”
Terrorist: “Why?”
Journalist: “Uh, I can’t tell you. I’ve just gotta go.”
Terrorist: “Thanks for the warning!”
Ah_Yeah,
There is widespread belief that the US military INTENTIONALLY targets “brown” journalists.
If that is not true, shouldn’t they be willing to release the video?
Wow. Angry hacks on a Saturday. When are you going to start pissing on Tony Snow’s grave?
This item is newsworthy because “across the board” the Bush Admin has restricted public access to governmental information that is meant to be available. Whether it is the appointments of Att Gen’s, the drafting of EPA reports, military video or the Official Records of G Bush #41. Outrageous, everything is clamped down.
Just reason #37 that Bush should be impeached.
Although I agree with all the above, my question is: How do you tell the journalist without warning the bad guys?
My sense of it is that they are so disorganized they couldn’t find a tape if they wanted to.
#7 – Very possible. Those tapes are used for after action critiques and review by the crew. They aren’t normally archived. Seeing the tape probably won’t help Reuters keep its people safe in a war zone. There is only one way to do that.
The only conclusion I have come up with to solve this problem is: In order to have the journalist forewarned with any effectiveness, they would have to be deployed by the Military.
That’s the only conceivable way that their whereabouts would be known to the military thereby allowing timely warnings to be given.
How many of us believe the press would be willing to do this?
About the military targeting brown journalist. I have this question: Unless the journalist is holding a huge sign saying “PRESS”, how would anyone know they are journalist and not a terrorist documenting an attack for Al-jazeera?
#9 Yep. If I was a 19 year old soldier out there who was targeted by terrorists disguised as anyone, there would probably be a lot more dead reporters than there are today.
In WWII journalist’s were uniformed and deployed with the troops.
>> Ah_Yea said, on July 12th, 2008 at 10:27 am
>> About the military targeting brown journalist. I have this question: Unless the journalist is holding a huge sign saying “PRESS”, how would anyone know they are journalist and not a terrorist documenting an attack for Al-jazeera?
It’s not an accident, according to the rumors. It was Bush administration policy to kill journalists that didn’t report as they wanted.
Are you seriously unaware of this? It’s been widely reported. I did a quick Google and this came up on the top but there are many articles:
“MPs leaked Bush plan to hit al-Jazeera”
Two Labour MPs have defied the Official Secrets Act by passing on the contents of a secret British document revealing how President George Bush wanted to bomb the Arabic TV station, al-Jazeera.
More: http://tinyurl.com/6apw9x
I can tell you what happened. They were running around in a war zone and themselves killed. It a risk that comes with the job of being a war correspondent who wants to be in the action.
#11
Al-jazeera = Reuters?
Rumor = fact?
Interesting world you live in.
>> Ron Larson said,
>> I can tell you what happened. They were running around in a war zone and themselves killed. It a risk that comes with the job of being a war correspondent who wants to be in the action.
If so, then the Pentagon should be eager to release the video and vindicate themselves.
If they withhold the video, then…
By the way, how can you “tell us what happened”? You got some insider information on this case? Or are you one of these guys who ALWAYS sides with our government, no matter what? That kind of attitude can send a whole country down the tubes.
>> Paddy-O said,
>> Rumor = fact?
That’s my point. Let’s determine the facts in this case. If they withhold the video, I can only assume they dong want the facts to come out.
As for Bush committing a war crime by intentionally targeting journalists: let’s have an investigation, hold a trial and DETERMINE THE FACTS in that too.
>> John C Dvorak said,
>> My sense of it is that they are so disorganized they couldn’t find a tape if they wanted to.
My “sense” is that this administration destroys video tapes,
CIA destroyed al-Qaida interrogation video
http://tinyurl.com/youf4b
..even when it is clearly illegal to do so.
C.I.A. Destroyed Tapes as Judge Sought Interrogation
Data
http://tinyurl.com/65hrut
You can never, NEVER, give this administration the benefit of the doubt since they have shamelessly betrayed this country again and again.
#14 “As for Bush committing a war crime by intentionally targeting journalists:”
That’ not a war crime. We targeted Tokyo Rose in WWII. If you are running propaganda for an enemy during a war you are a legit target.
Next tinfoil hat conspiracy theory.
#16 – Patrick
>>That’ not a war crime. We targeted Tokyo
>>Rose in WWII.
Sure it’s a war crime.
And we never “targeted” Tokyo Rose. Iva Toguri (Tokyo Rose) was held captive and forced to broadcast from Tokyo, but extensive investigations showed that she never never aided the Axis forces. She was convicted of treason on the basis of testimony by people who were subsequently shown to have lied.
So not only was Tokyo Rose an innocent victim, but targeting Reuters journalists for execution IS a war crime.
You’re zero for zero, son.
#16 wrote “If you are running propaganda for an enemy during a war you are a legit target.”
Don’t look now, Paddy-O, but I think you’ve identified anyone who repeats Bush Administration propaganda as a “legit target” to any of our enemies. Many will agree that this includes the puppets who work at Fox News, who carelessly repeat administration claims that often turn out to be false, and do so without further investigation or any regard for their veracity.
You’ve marked them as legitimate targets for death, when in reality they deserve nothing more than a short stay in the stockade 😉
#17 “but targeting Reuters journalists for execution IS a war crime.”
I never talked about targeting Reuters reporters. Your zero for reading comprehension, boy.
And no, targeting someone who works in the war effort for an enemy isn’t a war crime. Funny, it makes it possible to bomb factories, where civilians work.
But, I wouldn’t expect you to know much about that type of stuff.
#18 – If they are running around in a war zone pushing propaganda for one side they can be targeted… If an Al-jazeera reporter is running around Iraq pimping for terrorists I fully expect our soldiers to gun him down without a second thought.
>> Paddy-O said,
>> #18 – If they are running around in a war zone pushing propaganda for one side they can be targeted…
Nope. It doesn’t work that way. Targeting journalists is a crime.
“U.S. Govt Accused of War Crimes Against Journalists”
http://tinyurl.com/66w6o8
When did Americans give up on law and order? Especially the conservatives who used to RUN on “law and order.”
The law says you can’t shoot journalists because you disagree with what they write — even in a war zone.
BTW, Have you watched Al Jazeera? I’ve seen a little — both of the English and the Arabic — and I didn’t see them “pimp” for the terrorists. What I saw was biased but no more so than, let’s say, Fox.
#20, whether someone gathering news is “pimping” is completely in the eye of the beholder, and you’ve certainly laid out a chilling perspective where any newsperson on either side can be legitimately gunned down without a second thought, based on the belief that they are part of a propaganda machine.
And maybe you’re right (ultra-right, one might say). Maybe newspersons shouldn’t be awarded neutral, non-target status. After all, the best source of information in wartime is always the government, and independent news agencies really have no place except to repeat the facts gathered by armed military personnel.
So then, journalists like Daniel Pearl are legitimate targets if captors believe these people are propagandists for the enemy???
>> Paddy-O said, on July 12th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
>> I never talked about targeting Reuters reporters. Your zero for reading comprehension, boy.
But targeting and killing reporters sure seems to be something George W Bush wanted to do, son.
… and not even in a war zone!
Bush planned to bomb Arab TV station al-Jazeera in friendly Qatar, a “Top Secret” No 10 memo reveals.
But he was talked out of it at a White House summit by Tony Blair, who said it would provoke a worldwide backlash.
A source said: “There’s no doubt what Bush wanted, and no doubt Blair didn’t want him to do it.” Al-Jazeera is accused by the US of fuelling the Iraqi insurgency.
The attack would have led to a massacre of innocents on the territory of a key ally, enraged the Middle East and almost certainly have sparked bloody retaliation.
A source said last night: “The memo is explosive and hugely damaging to Bush.
“He made clear he wanted to bomb al-Jazeera in Qatar and elsewhere. Blair replied that would cause a big problem.
“There’s no doubt what Bush wanted to do – and no doubt Blair didn’t want him to do it.”
http://tinyurl.com/98j6r
We need investigations. Lot’s of ’em. Even after this black-hearted bunch are out of office. Maybe at the Hague, if we won’t do it in the US.
Reuters reporters are being unjustifiably killed while doing their job. Naturally, Reuters are concerned about it. Asking for an explanation of the events that led to their deaths, is the very least they can do. I expect that with due consideration, the professionalism of the United States forces will prevail and they will respond in a manner befitting the gravity of the events. Where the Hell, did Al Jazeera come into this?
#24 “Asking for an explanation of the events that led to their deaths, is the very least they can do.”
The explanation of the event leading up to their deaths is this:
Civilian reporters are traveling to a war zone where terrorists dressed as civilians (in violation of the Geneva convention) are attacking allied troops.
Said reporters refuse to deploy and stay with allied troops. Said reporters intentionally approach allied troops without military escort, knowing that nervous young troops may fire at them. Some of those same reporters get shot.
Pretty simple.
>> edwinrogers said,
>> Where the Hell, did Al Jazeera come into this?
Very credible sources say that Bush wanted to intentionally kill journalists from Al Jazeera (and staff and bystanders, too)
I used that as evidence that killing of journalists might be Bush Administration policy.
>> Paddy-O said,
>> Civilian reporters are traveling to a war zone where terrorists dressed as civilians (in violation of the Geneva convention) are attacking allied troops.
So, is it open season on all civilians in a war zone? Just kill ’em all and sort them out later?
Or just those that have a gigantic “PRESS” emblazoned front and back?
http://tinyurl.com/65p6hn
#19 – Patrick
>>I never talked about targeting Reuters reporters.
>>Your zero for reading comprehension, boy.
No, you talked about targeting Tokyo Rose. Which we never did (score = 0). Yet you seem to think it’s OK that Dumbya’s War Crimes Associates target Reuters journalists. (Score again = 0). Or are you saying that Dumbya never did this (score = 0).
Score: 0+0+0 = 0
You lose.
#27 “So, is it open season on all civilians in a war zone? Just kill ‘em all and sort them out later?”
Repeat what I wrote, not your twisted interpretation of it.
If you are stupid enough to into the situation described don’t complain when you get shot at.
Mister Mustard,
I so agree with you. It is a crime to target unarmed civilians, journalists or otherwise.
Yet, there are people on this blog who think it is OK to kill people for not agreeing with the Bush administration.
Can you tell me what has gone wrong with Americans? When did we quit believing in the rule of law?