U.S. soldiers shoot, kill Reuters cameraman

bayarea.com ^ | Sun, Aug. 17, 2003 | HANNAH ALLAM, KEN DILANIAN and DREW BROWN

[FreedomCalls]

Funny thing is, there are plenty of new high definition mini-cams out there that can record broadcast quality video, but the news journos refuse to use them because they don't look right. This is a clear case where looking "chic" killed him.

[ctnoell70]

After all of the anti-American spin exhibited by Reuters post 9-11-01, could this be a case of "what goes around, comes around"? However, I will not lose any sleep over this "unfortunate" news, especially after Reuters accused the U.S. of "staging and exaggerating" the Jessica Lynch rescue and refers to terrorists as "freedom fighters".

[CanadianLibertarian]

What?? They killed a Reuters guy? Just one??!!? Man the military just isn't trying hard enuff.

[novacation]

That was the first thing I thought when I heard this sorry.

[atomic conspiracy]

A Palestinian Al-Reuters hack who had received an award from the Trotskyite "Committee to Protect terrorists Journalists"? The soldiers mistook his camera for a rocket launcher and shot him? Has someone checked that camera? They might have been right.

[Dr._Joseph_Warren]

Last footage from the cameraman. This gives an you an idea of how far away he was and how clear a view the soldier had (or didn't have).

The cameraman and what the soldier thinks he sees.

No surprise that he was mistaken for the enemy. Very unfortunate.

[OESY]

"What am I supposed to tell his wife?"

Why should this be treated any differently from any other Reuters-reported death in a combat zone, to wit:

"Reuters regrets to inform you that your husband, ______, is dead. Reuters disclaims all responsibility, and will attempt to shift the blame to someone else on your behalf. Unfortunately, since your husband, _______, was incapable of performing other tasks and Reuters is an employer of last resort, Reuters trained, paid, fed, transported, equipped and otherwise provided for your elite liberal lifestyle. At least your husband, _______, with Reuters help, was not left to rot in some ghetto, unable to see the world for himself. Now, if you will kindly sign this release, please, we'll will be able to rush back to our air-conditioned offices where we can continue our war against the United States of America."

[Emily Lattila]

Oddly enough.

[bootyist-monk]

You are most correct. Also, if they saw a reflection, than the crew's initial reaction is that they are the optics of a weapon, not the lens of a camera. Unfortunate, but if he was trying to "sneak" some footage, then he should have known the risks.

[MEGoody]

"He didn't do anything. He was filming," Nadim said."

My heart goes out to this man's family. I'm sure he didn't do anything intentionally to make the soldiers feel threatened. However, in a war zone such as this, events such as this will occur. The journalists who choose to put themselves into these situations are voluntarialy assuming the risk.

[MEGoody]

"Had a terrorist exploded a nuclear device at an NFL game, Reuters would have said an "alleged" terrorist. Hypocrites."

You're right about that.