I’ve just been browsing the BBC website, catching up on the happenings on the other side of the world when I came across a story about the inquest into the death of the ITN journalist, Terry Lloyd, killed in Iraq in 2003. (BBC story here.)

The inquest found that Mr Lloyd had been unlawfully killed after he was shot in the head by the American military whilst in a makeshift ambulance, after being hurt in crossfire. Mr Lloyd’s Lebanese interpreter, Hussein Osman, was also killed and French cameraman Fred Nerac is still officially classed as missing, presumed dead. Belgian cameraman Daniel Demoustier was the ITN crew’s only survivor.

The BBC article reported that a spokesmen from the US Defense Department said an investigation in 2003 concluded that the US had “followed the rules of military engagement”. It seems strange that the US military concluded that killing three members of a news team, one of which was shot in the head whilst in an ambulance, was ‘following the rules of military engagement’.

It struck me that because Mr Lloyd was a ‘unilateral’ journalist and not ’embedded’ with the military he was free from military reporting restrictions. Perhaps during the battle between American and Iraqi troupes, which he was caught up in by accident, he witnessed something the Americans would rather not have the rest of the world know about?

Jeremy Dear, the general secretary of the London National Union of Journalists (NUJ), implied that Mr Lloyd’s death might have been an attempt to silence him. Mr Dear was quoted by Fox News (link here) as saying: “The killing of journalists with impunity must never, ever go unpunished. Any attempt to silence journalists in this way must never succeed.”

Another BBC article (link here) reported that the inquest had revealed that the British military had withheld details of Mr Lloyd’s death.

Why would the British Military feel the need to hide details of the death of an innocent journalist unless they themselves had something to hide or were trying to cover up for the Americans?

The BBC reported that Ex-ITN chief executive Stewart Purvis told the corners court: “I came to the conclusion that the British military knew more about what happened at the top level than they were disclosing to us.”

Subsequently ITN sent two of its journalists to Iraq to try and uncover details about the circumstances of Mr Lloyd’s death.

Despite these attempts by ITN to uncover the truth, full details of how Mr Lloyd died did not come out until the inquest. CNN (link here) quoted Mr Lloyd’s daughter, Chelsey Lloyd, as saying: “Until now we were unaware that my father was able to stand and walk to a makeshift ambulance after being shot once by an Iraqi bullet. The man who stopped to help my father was an ordinary Iraqi whose intentions were to take him and other wounded to a nearby hospital.

“After helping my father into his minibus the evidence shows that the vehicle whilst driving the wounded away was fired on by US forces, and that one bullet entered my father’s head after passing through the vehicle, and it was this American bullet which killed him.”

Belgian cameraman Daniel Demoustier was the only survivor of the attack. Fox News reported that Mr Demoustier told the coroners court that a truck carrying Iraqi forces overtook ITN’s two four-wheel drive vehicles and gunfire erupted. He said he then jumped from the flaming car and lay in the sand, waiting for the shooting to stop.

Mr Demoustier said he tried to stand to signal to the US tanks in the area but they resumed firing at the clearly marked ITN vehicles.

Are these the actions of a military that as the US Defence Department said: “Has never deliberately targeted noncombatants, including journalists,” and “have always gone to extreme measures to avoid civilian casualties and collateral damage,”?

To fuel further suspicion about the Americans reasons for shooting at the ITN team the US military refused to attend the inquest into Mr Lloyds death instead sending statements about the incident. CNN reported that the coroner, Andrew Walker, said: “It was and is essential they attend and it is not satisfactory to have their statements read in court.”

According to the Guardian (link here) the corner concluded that: “The US soldiers did not fire in self-defence. And had the killing taken place under English law “it would have constituted an unlawful homicide”.”

The British corner ruled that Mr Lloyd was unlawfully killed and said he would write to the attorney general and the director of public prosecutions “to see whether any steps can be taken to bring the perpetrators responsible for this to justice”! Despite this Fox News has already reported that the “prosecution of US military personnel is unlikely.”

With the American media already passing judgement, the incident already being shrouded in secrecy and with the American military claiming that they followed “the rules of military engagement” is justice ever likely to be done?

If those responsible don’t least face trial for their actions it appears to be sending out a message that it is acceptable for the American military to fire at, and kill a British journalist who may (or may not) have just acquired information they don’t want to get into the public domain. I guess this is what counts as “following the rules of military engagement”. What makes the incident all the worse is that the British military appear to have aided the Americans in withholding information about what really happened.

Lets just hope Fox News is wrong and those responsible for this killing are brought to trial in a British court and made to face the consquences of their actions.

After all as ITN’s editor in chief David Mannion was quoted by the BBC a saying: “Independent, unilateral reporting, free from official strictures, is crucial; not simply to us as journalists but to the role we play in a free and democratic society.”

* Posted by j150vsc on 14/10/2006.