Reuters Cameraman Held in Iraq

Obviously he is less of a victim than Judy Miller.

Perhaps Reuters’ coverage of the war will take on a subtle political tilt against the occupiers. We can only wish that the same thing would happen to a Murdoch reporter.

I guess one thing to say is that you have quoted the Reuters article very selectively.

Silly people. It’s “Al-Reuters“, and the Americans are only protecting themselves against scurrilous traitors who would offer aid and comfort to the enemy.

But he’s just an Iraqi. They kill dozens of them and send probably hundreds to the concentration camps every day. What’s so special about this one – that he happened to be working for the Reuters? Big deal, let ’em get another one.

Here ya go:

BAGHDAD (Reuters) – The U.S. military confirmed on Thursday that its soldiers killed a Reuters journalist in Iraq but said their action was “appropriate.”

Describing Sunday’s incident, when television soundman Waleed Khaled was killed by multiple shots, Major General Rick Lynch said: “That car approached at a high rate of speed and then conducted activity that in itself was suspicious. There were individuals hanging outside with what looked to be a weapon.

“It stopped and immediately put itself in reverse. Again suspicious activity. Our soldiers on the scene used established rules of engagement and all the training received … decided that it was appropriate to engage that particular car.

Reminded me of this (from Juan Cole’s blog):

One of the ways we train our Marines is by going over scenarios with them. In one, I propose that they are traveling down the highway in a convoy. As they approach an overpass, they see a MAM (military age male) standing on the middle of the overpass with something about the size of a baseball (grenade-sized) in his hands. When he sees the convoy, he freezes. What should you do? Most of the Marines will say, “He’s demonstrated hostile intent, you need to waste him. He could be holding a hand grenade and be intending to drop it into one of the trucks as you pass under.” (This is an actual tactic used by the insurgents).

I change the scenario and say that when he sees you, he drops to the ground on the overpass. Some Marine will invariably answer, to the acclaim of his fellow Marines, “That’s a hostile act. He’s taking cover because he’s about to detonate an IED on you. You need to take him out.” (Also something they’ve actually seen.)

Finally, I change the scenario to say that, when he sees you, he turns around in the direction from which he came and starts running off the overpass (you can see where this is going). The answer is usually that that too is a hostile act or hostile intent because he is clearly trying to get off that overpass before the IED goes off.

Apparently, the only safe action for the MAM to take is to have Scotty beam him up. As far as some Marines are concerned, the presence of an Arab male in proximity to an American convoy may be all you need to find hostile act/hostile intent. This is, of course, highly reminiscent of that quip in Michael Herr’s Dispatches, “The ones who run are VC. The ones who don’t run are well-disciplined VC.”

But their responses are appropriate. The most obvious of the ‘rules of engagement’ obviously is this: when you feel threatened, shoot first. This is most natural, anything else would be unreasonable. That’s what fighting a war is all about, that’s why war is supposed to be the last resort.

The Iraqi’s decided against shutting down Abu Ghraib.