THE KILLING OF WALEED KHALED
BAGHDAD (Reuters) – A Reuters cameraman remained in U.S. military custody in Baghdad on Tuesday, two days after surviving an incident in which his soundman was shot dead, apparently by U.S. troops.
U.S. officers said they were continuing to question Haider Kadhem, 24, about “inconsistencies” in his statements after he was taken from the car in which soundman Waleed Khaled was killed by multiple shots while on a news assignment.
Iraqi police said U.S. troops fired on the Reuters team, both Iraqis.
Reuters has demanded the immediate release of the cameraman, who arrived in Baghdad from his home in the southern city of Samawa only last week. The international news agency has said it sees no reason to detain a victim and witness in the shooting.
Kadhem was treated for minor wounds from flying fragments, a U.S. military spokesman said.
He added that a U.S. investigation into the circumstances of the killing was continuing.
Security experts who examined the scene said all the shots appeared to have been fired from the same spot, corresponding to the roof of a building overlooking the highway bridge where the car was hit.
Kadhem told colleagues who spoke to him briefly after the shooting that he saw a U.S. soldier on that rooftop.
Two Reuters cameramen have been killed by U.S. troops in Iraq since the American invasion in 2003. A third was shot dead by a sniper in Ramadi last November in circumstances for which Reuters is still seeking an explanation from U.S. forces.
Reuters’ cameraman in the city of Ramadi, Ali al-Mashhadani, was arrested by U.S. forces three weeks ago and is being held without charge in Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad.
Military officials have allowed no access to the journalist and have refused to say what he is accused of.
A U.S. military spokesman said a judicial hearing into his case “probably” took place on Monday at a secret location in Baghdad. No access was available for an attorney or any other interested party and it was not yet clear what the outcome was.
*********
COMMENT: I was aggressively challenged in an earlier blog post about Arab journalists being killed by US troops. I was further challenged in the notion that the US would employ snipers to do the killing, or that the US would cover up their actions. I remain unconvinced, and even more unconvinced, after this incident, in which the other journalist, who was wounded, is still being held incommunicado.
Is this what it will take for the editors of the big news organs to begin questioning the veracity of EVERY statement coming out of the Centcom lie-mill? -SG
jay taber:
fighting the war on truth
30 August 2005, 5:56 pmm.c.:
I don’t want to presume to know too much about the Tet Offensive since I wasn’t born yet in early 1968.
Americans watched on live television U.S. Marines & 101st Airborne fight NLF commandos inside the Embassy compound. CBS’ Walter Cronkite, America’s best-known news anchor, donned a helmet in Saigon with gunfire in the background and declared the war lost. Afterwards, Lyndon Johnson’s popularity was at 30% and his handling of the war was at 20%. This suggests that both Wall Street and Main Street had had enough, although that ghoul Dick Nixon prolonged the war another 5 years or so to get reelected.
The military quickly learned the lesson of bad PR, i.e. if a tree falls in the forest but no one hears it?! If I’m not mistaken, the first Gulf War was the first time on a large-scale the U.S. military started doing embedded journalists with military units. Non-embedded journalists were not granted passes by the DOD.
30 August 2005, 7:22 pmConsumer:
I remember that aggressive challenge re: the blog on journalists killed by occupation troops. I wonder if Ed checked out what those hacks at the NYT had to say about the incident.
A US spokesman has regurgitated the same old bullshit. Namely, the actions of US troops was in line with the rules of engagement, yada yada.
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/news/news-iraq-reuters.html
Some points seem to contradict each other here, only don’t count on the NYT to point them out. They claim that the car “approached at a high rate of speed and then conducted activity that in itself was suspicious.” For example? “There were individuals hanging outside with what looked to be a weapon.”
There were only two people in the car, one being the driver, so “individuals” hanging outside the vehicle would be quite a feat. But the NYT can’t worry their pretty little heads with that. You can almost see them nodding reverently as they jot in their pads.
OK, so the car is rushing forward with (a) jihadist(s) hanging out the window(s) brandishing a rocket launcher, see? Next:
The car “stopped and immediately put itself in reverse” thus constituting more “suspicious activity”. The spokesman goes on to say that US troops “used established rules of engagement and all the training received … (and) decided that it was appropriate to engage that particular car.”
US training indicates that a car backing AWAY towards whence it came constitutes a threat that needs to be engaged, got it? So that’s why they held their fire as the car was approaching but then opened fire as it reversed.
I mean, the fact that the car was old and filled with “local nationals” would make any rational human being think “suicide bomber” but still, maybe there are some ne’er-do-wells that would question some parts of this story…?
Fortunately the military conducted an investigation and concluded that the actions were indeed appropriate. Whew! Here we were worrying that something fishy might be happening! Can we see that report, btw? “But a spokesman for the division said the report had not yet been formally completed and was not yet available.” OK. We’ll just wait then…
It’s a great indication as to how low the “liberal” press has sunk when bullshit like this gets by without even a peep. They don’t even try to make the shit sound good anymore.
2 September 2005, 2:09 pmComandante Gringo:
Unfortunately, in a war with little in the way of a discernable front, there is no way for independent journalists — or even Reuters ones — to “embed” themselves with the insurgent side, and be able to stay some safe distance away from imperialist soldiers while getting their stories/footage. And so they must always be at the mercy of these goons in a war like this.
Probably the best thing to do is to continue attempting to expose these goons as cold-blooded 1st-degree serial murderers who actually target civilians — and reporters: a dangerous, double-edged strategy.
So there’s no getting around this problem as long there is no front — and no accountability.
3 September 2005, 6:03 amPeterjomo:
Just for the record: Waleed Khaled was the fourth Reuters newsman to have been killed by American soldiers in separate incidents in Iraq. No Reuters newsmen have been killed by terrorist action.
30 December 2005, 2:49 pm