Italian Journalist Shot by US Troops

[Pangloss]

I kinda waited a bit because I didn't want to start a shooting match over this. Not that anyone here is really inclined toward such, but it couldn't hurt to let the dust settle a bit and see if any more info came out, and give people a chance to think about it a bit. It even has a bit of a "science" link, in terms of the real-world issue of guard post procedures in occupied lands.

 

So I'm curious what you guys thought of that mess. I guess my own feeling is that we need to see if any investigation produces any evidence of wrongdoing by the troops (coming from someone other than the journalist). Barring any major revelations, however, it seems to me that the onus is on the Italians to prove wrongdoing here. Lacking evidence to the contrary, this appears to be nothing more than a tragic accident.

 

I was surprised to learn this week that the woman in question actually works for the Italian communist-oriented newspaper, which is a (if not "the") major force behind Italian opposition to the war in Iraq. This is a big political deal over there, with the government firmly supporting the war (with troops on the ground in Iraq).

 

So I'm sympathetic with the woman for being a hostage and all that, but her allegation that they were *deliberately* shot at seems shallow when you consider her politics, and frankly just doesn't pass the stink test.

 

But at the same time, I do hope the military is seriously reviewing and carefully considering its guard post procedures.

[Sayonara]

Why no links to related articles?

 

So I'm curious what you guys thought of that mess. I guess my own feeling is that we need to see if any investigation produces any evidence of wrongdoing by the troops (coming from someone other than the journalist). Barring any major revelations, however, it seems to me that the onus is on the Italians to prove wrongdoing here. Lacking evidence to the contrary, this appears to be nothing more than a tragic accident.

Well... yeah. That's all fairly obvious. Let's not pretend though that shooting someone even by accident is "okay" - the fact that one can avoid legal consequences does not actually mean that one is absolved of responsibility for one's own actions.

 

So I'm sympathetic with the woman for being a hostage and all that, but her allegation that they were *deliberately* shot at seems shallow when you consider her politics, and frankly just doesn't pass the stink test.

The fact that she works for what you describe as a "communist-oriented newspaper" does not mean she is a communist, supports communism, or shares any communist beliefs.

And even if she was a communist, you can't seriously expect us to accept that makes her less likely to be deliberately shot at by American troops.

 

Disappointed by yet another "antiwar = commie, and commie = untrustworthy" thread. You probably didn't intend it to be that, but that's what it'll turn into.

[Pangloss]

Saya, she has a long history of reporting anti-American "news" to her paper, which is called "Il Manifesto" for crying out loud. Gimme a little credit. (grin)

[TimeTraveler]

Here is an article from today:

 

http://www.adelphia.net/news/read.php?id=CP_3145&ps=1018

 

Italy's foreign minister said Tuesday that the car carrying an intelligence officer killed by U.S. fire in Iraq last week was not speeding up and did not receive signals to stop, countering suggestions by American authorities.

[Sayonara]

Saya, she has a long history of reporting anti-American "news" to her paper, which is called "Il Manifesto" for crying out loud. Gimme a little[/i'] credit. (grin)

And if I earned my living writing for Il Manifesto, I probably would too. It doesn't mean I'd believe everything I had written, and even if it did it would not make me untrustworthy.

[Aardvark]

And if I earned my living writing for Il Manifesto, I probably would too. It doesn't mean I'd believe everything I had written, and even if it did it would not make me untrustworthy.

 

Even if you were an untrustworthy, dodgy Italian communist journalist, it seems unlikely the USA would deliberately gun you down just as Italy starts national celebrations on your return home from captivity.

 

It looks like a case of a bad accident. Something that the USA sometimes seems to have a bit of a bad habit about. Shooting your supposed allies isn't a great way to conduct foriegn policy. I'm guessing some heads are going to roll (metaphorically) in the US military for this.

[Pangloss]

And if I earned my living writing for Il Manifesto, I probably would too. It doesn't mean I'd believe everything I had written, and even if it did it would not make me untrustworthy.

 

Quite right. But it's not a question of trust. It's a question of whether we need to view her statements with a modicum of skepticism. Context is relevent in the search for the truth, especially when conflicting eyewitness testimony is all we have to go by.

 

Let's sum things up, shall we?

 

On the American side, we have:

- Well-trained Marines, with no immediate indication that these are "Abu Ghraib" type soldiers

- Nothing to be gained by the act, and much to be lost

- The journalist has demonstrated bias against the war

- Basic wisdom: "It's a war zone; what do you expect?"

- Coordination procedures were not followed by the Italians, who knew better

- Some clear indications that at least some instructional procedures at the scene were not followed (based on the testimony from BOTH sides)

 

On the Italian side, we have:

- Opposing testimony

- A dead body

- The marines have vested interest in not being "found out" if they screwed up

- She has no real way to know whether she was deliberately fired upon -- how would she know?

 

And some intederminent factors:

- What does the physical evidence say?

- The Italian military and its personnel are notably silent about the incident (but they work for a pro-war gov't, so this could be a "con")

 

Basic analysis suggests that her claim that she was *deliberately* fired upon can be more or less dismissed, unless further evidence arises.

 

But the issue of whether or not the personnel at the guard post acted properly obviously has to be investigated further, and can't be dismissed, even though the evidence is somewhat stacked on their side at the moment.

[Nevermore]

A group of Marines also recently fired on another car, orphaning 6 children in a shower of their parents' blood. I believe this was in a green zone. I'll look for the article.

[Pangloss]

I assume you'll include the reason given as to why their car was fired upon?

[john5746]

One good thing will come of this:

 

The soldiers will think before they shoot.

 

One bad thing will come of this:

 

The soldiers will think before they shoot.

[Tetrahedrite]

So I'm sympathetic with the woman for being a hostage and all that' date=' but her allegation that they were *deliberately* shot at seems shallow when you consider her politics, and frankly just doesn't pass the stink test.

[/quote']

Would you believe her story more if she was extremely right wing?

[budullewraagh]

well the soldiers wouldnt have shot at her if she were

[Pangloss]

well the soldiers wouldnt have shot at her if she were

 

See the difference between you and me, Bud, is that I don't assume you're wrong.

 

 

Would you believe her story more if she was extremely right wing?

 

Nope. My interest here is not ideological -- it's the search for truth, regardless of political consequences.

[TimeTraveler]

See the difference between you and me' date=' Bud, is that I don't assume you're wrong.

 

 

 

 

Nope. My interest here is not ideological -- it's the search for truth, regardless of political consequences.[/quote']

 

Thats the best way to look at things. Good post!

[Sayonara]

Quite right. But it's not a question of trust. It's a question of whether we need to view her statements with a modicum of skepticism. Context is relevent in the search for the truth, especially when conflicting eyewitness testimony is all we have to go by.

And this is by all means correct, but let's keep the context actually relevant.

 

After all, if you're going to suggest scepticism because she "works for a communist newspaper", which is a rather vaguely connected piece of information and nothing really to do with the incident itself, then I can cast equal scepticism on the opposing side by saying that they "work for a country that has mounted numerous invasions in the past half-century".

 

And after a while it all gets silly.

[blike]

After all, if you're going to suggest scepticism because she "works for a communist newspaper", which is a rather vaguely connected piece of information and nothing really to do with the incident itself

Indeed, it has little to do with the incident itself, but it certainly will play in to her account of the incident.

 

These are 18-24 year old males stuck in a horrible catch22. If they don't shoot, it could be a suicide bomber. If they do shoot, it could be a family of scared Iraqi's who don't understand what's going on.

 

It sucks, but I doubt it was intentional. That doesn't mean heads won't roll.

[Sayonara]

Yes. It just quite galling to see smear being applied under the guise of 'considering all the facts'.

If you got shot by someone, you got shot by them. Your political beliefs, voting history or the boys/girls you kissed at school have got nothing to do with it and don't make you any less shot.

 

Society really needs to hunt out all lawyers and burn them at the stake - seriously, they're the root of all our problems. They make people think in stupid terms.

[Aardvark]

Society really needs to hunt out all lawyers and burn them at the stake - seriously' date=' they're the root of all our problems. They make people think in stupid terms.[/quote']

 

After my military coup you can be minister of justice, aka minister of hurting people who piss me off.

[Sayonara]

Might I suggest Blike for "Minister of Pacifying the Masses", and Phi for All for "Minister of Keeping the Horror within Sensible Limits".

[Aardvark]

Excellent, excellent.

 

The plot develops, soon our moment shall arrive.

 

 

How the lawyers shall tremble.

[Pangloss]

Yes. It just quite galling to see smear being applied under the guise of 'considering all the facts'.

If you got shot by someone, you got shot by them. Your political beliefs, voting history or the boys/girls you kissed at school have got nothing to do with it and don't make you any less shot.

 

I didn't do that, Sayonara. I used her political beliefs to shine light on her description of events after the fact. I never once suggested that she wasn't SHOT, or that it was a good thing that she was.

[Ophiolite]

Society really needs to hunt out all lawyers and burn them at the stake - seriously, they're the root of all our problems.

Do you believe in reincarnation? Were you once Charles Dickens?

[Sayonara]

I didn't do that, Sayonara. I used her political beliefs to shine light on her description of events after the fact. I never once suggested that she wasn't SHOT, or that it was a good thing that she was.

I didn't mean to imply that you said she wasn't shot. I am simply pointing out that what you/we/they think of her shouldn't allow one to "adjust" the severity of any consequences for the shooter.

[Pangloss]

Of course.

[blike]

Recent pictures of her car have been released, and it wasn't "destroyed" as she claimed.

 

"Earlier, she suggested US troops might have deliberately tried to kill her."

 

If they had been deliberately trying to kill her, I assure there would have been more than a few bullet holes in the car.

 

Her story is also inconsistent.

 

(1a) "Sgrena told colleagues the vehicle was not travelling fast and had already passed several checkpoints on its way to the airport."

 

(1b) "We hadn't previously encountered any checkpoint and we didn't understand where the shots came from.''

 

(2a) "But in an interview with Italy's La 7 Television, the 56-year-old journalist said "there was no bright light, no signal."

 

(2b) "It wasn't a checkpoint, but a patrol that started shooting after pointing some lights in our direction"

 

And now this is coming out:

 

"ROME -- Italian agents likely withheld information from U.S. counterparts about a cash-for-freedom deal with gunmen holding an Italian hostage for fear that Americans might block the trade, Italian news reports said yesterday.

The decision by operatives of Italy's SISMI military intelligence service to keep the CIA in the dark about the deal for the release of reporter Giuliana Sgrena, might have "short-circuited" communications with U.S. forces controlling the road from Baghdad to the city's airport, the newspaper La Stampa said."