John Murdoch

The international media is abuzz with the news that an assistant coroner in Oxfordshire, England, has ruled that a British television newsman was "unlawfully killed" by U.S. troops in Iraq.

The news accounts seem to focus on the press releases of the widow and the family--the scant facts that appear in public seem to include these items:

• Terry Lloyd was a journalist for the U.K. television network ITN. He had been covering the buildup to the Iraqi invasion from Kuwait. When the invasion of Iraq began, Lloyd followed to cover the story, with a Lebanese translator, a French cameraman, and a Belgian cameraman.


• Unlike many journalists, Lloyd and his team were not "embedded" with U.S. or British troops. They were in Iraq as "unilaterals"--not subject to censorship by military authorities, but not associated with (or protected by) military units.


• On May 22, 2003, Lloyd and his team were in a 4x4, clearly marked "Press"--and got caught in a crossfire between U.S. units and the Iraqi Army outside Basra.


• Some newspaper accounts suggest that the vehicle was hit by Iraqi fire--the coroner's report states that the coroner believes that the 4x4 was hit by fire from a U.S. tank.


• Lloyd survived the initial shooting (albeit having been shot once)--he was helped into a minibus driven by an Iraqi civilian.


• The civilian then attempted to drive away from the scene. According to press accounts, the minibus was fired on by a U.S. attack helicopter--Lloyd was killed.

(Let me say, incidentally, that there is a developing Wikipedia entry about this here.)

The coverage seems to raise more questions than it answers:

Why is a combat casualty in Iraq a matter for a coroner in Oxford?

For starters--how did this come to be the subject of a coroner's inquest in Oxfordshire, England? The Mainstream Media seems to be giving big play to the coroner's sound bite:

Mr Walker said: "I have no doubt Mr Lloyd was killed by a tracer bullet fired from an American gun. This injury was received after Mr Lloyd had been placed in the rear of the minibus and was consistent with a hole in the back of the minibus ... In my view, I have no doubt that the minibus presented no threat to the American forces. It was obvious that wounded persons were getting into the vehicle."

What seems to be missing is the last paragraph from The Guardian Unlimited's coverage:

The US soldiers did not fire in self-defence, he ruled. Had the killing taken place under English law "it would have constituted an unlawful homicide".

This would seem to make it clear that the killing did not take place "under English law." In other words, this coroner has no jurisdiction in the matter. That seems to be underscored by the fact that the coroner is going to write to the Director of Public Prosecutions to ask for a trial. (It also seems to explain why the "inquest" appears to have been ignored by the U.S. military, beyond a press statement that the U.S. military did not, and does not, intentionally target journalists.)

Is this a political stunt?

The assistant coroner getting all the press appears to be getting all the press by mouthing red meat sound bites to a British media keen to oppose the Iraqi War. Is he running for office? Is there reason to believe (the jurisdiction, his political affiliations, etc.) that this was a "show inquest"--staged for the purpose of criticizing the U.S. military?

Is there any chance that U.S. combat troops--acting under the rules of engagement--will actually be subject to prosecution in England?

Key distinction here--the assistant coroner's accusation insists that the soldiers were not firing in self-defense, so the death of Lloyd (and two other members of his team) were "unlawful." That's based on the English legal definition of "unlawful death" as being a death caused by another, unless in self-defense. The rules of engagement on the battlefield in Iraq were not the civil laws of England--the reason those soldiers were there was precisely to cause the death of others--and precisely to fire in something other than self-defense. The idea, to paraphrase General George S. Patton, is to make the other, poor, dumb son of a bitch fire back in self-defense. Is anybody with any credibility in English legal circles claiming that there is any jurisdiction for Oxfordshire coroners to bring charges against U.S. military personnel?

Is there a trend here?

Belgium has claimed the right to bring charges for "crimes against humanity" regardless of where a crime might have been committed. The U.S. opposed, for several years, the establishment of an International Criminal Court--based in part on concerns that the court might be used to prosecute American soldiers. Is this "inquest" part of a political movement to use the courts to oppose military action?

I'm not a lawyer...

But I really, really wish that some legal scholar would shed some light on this....

posted by John Murdoch  # 4:54 PM