CENTCOM releases documents on Death of Reuters Journalists

http://www2.centcom.mil/sites/foia/rr/CENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210/Forms/AllItems.aspx?RootFolder=%2fsites%2ffoia%2frr%2fCENTCOM%20Regulation%20CCR%2025210%2fDeath%20of%20Reuters%20Journalists&FolderCTID=&View=%7b41BA1AAF%2d785A%2d481A%2dA630%2d12470AFCD6FD%7d

by ismarc • 16 years ago

19 20 16 years ago

www2.centcom.mil

ismarc2• 16 years ago

I've tried very hard to stay out of the discussions, and someone pointed this out to me. It's a good read (sworn statements and determinations made by investigating officers) to understand the full situation (ie, everything going on outside of the one camera and radio chatter) and the judgement calls made.

jacquesm6• 16 years ago

Sworn statements are true in the eyes of the person making them, they are not necessarily objective truth.

It's like in most other cases like this, if you cover it up you're seriously suggesting you've got something to hide and that will take on momentum by itself.

The headlines the world over are roughly translated 'Americans murder innocent civilians'. If they had released this on their own initiative they could have controlled it much better, now it is too late for that.

It's interesting how some of the most balanced reporting on this comes from sites like Al Jazeera:

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2010/04/201045123...

zalew4• 16 years ago

"It's interesting how some of the most balanced reporting on this comes from sites like Al Jazeera"

If you're surprised by that, it means you don't know much about AJ and don't watch it. Currently they have the only decent journalism, along with BBC, which most of their AJ English journalists come from. The rest of popular news channels is TMZ-class compared to them.

ismarc2• 16 years ago

I agree completely, especially with regards to the sworn statements. Everyone involved was making decisions based on what they perceived, with the goal being a common consensus of the appropriate action. The investigation had a couple of inconsistencies between reports, but all very minor, and obviously not a "get our story straight" style of massive cover-up people would like to believe. Unfortunately, the time to release the documents to be believed was when Reuter's first filed the FOIA request for the video and documents they were shown. However, on an only mildly related note, I'm disappointed that the video is being so widely distributed with few warnings/protections around the brutality of what is contained.

iskander2• 16 years ago

Those soldiers, even after seeing the video, seem to remain convinced the people in the van were gathering weapons. Weird.

dsplittgerber• 16 years ago

If you just look at the photos PDF and compare the photos to the actual footage, you see two things. The photos actually provide a very clear shot of the Reuters journalist behind the corner (much better than the video, I thought), though his crouching is interpreted as "demonstrating hostile action". Interesting spin, though the point is moot, as no one could have made that out as clearly as that from the helicopter.

More importantly, the labeling is inconsistent. They mislabel the opening shots of the group walking towards the corner as "armed AIF with RPG", at the last shot the same person is an "armed AIF". It's the guy with the AK in hand. Even the pilots recognized him as having 'just' a weapon (i.e. AK-47), not an RPG.

CENTCOM releases documents on Death of Reuters Journalists

Related Stories