should the AMERICAN soldiers answer to there crime of murder?

Question

of unlawfully killing reporter terry jones .
and should the goverment demand it from the americans.

knowing how bottleless blair is for bush

sorry terry lloyd

thanks for pointing that out

Answer 1

war sucks...period!!!!!!!!!

Answer 2

Based on the info available, Terry was unlawfully killed by members of the U.S Army. Verdict arrived at by the Coroner. At the time of the attack, the vehicle which was carrying Terry was moving away from the soldiers.
Not sure if a charge of murder should be levied against these individuals, but certainly one of manslaughter.
Soldiers ARE responsible for their actions! The term " I was acting under orders" No longer carries weight. As proven at Nuremburg.
Charging them is one thing, getting them here is another.

In the first Gulf War, it is interesting to note that the US killed more British troops than the Iraqis did. (9 Fusiliers killed in an act of needless assault by US Tank Busters)

Answer 3

He was a reporter and was where he didn't belong to be. It doesn't matter what country you're from, it's a combat zone and if you put your life on the line to cover a news story, that comes with risks. Nobody needs to be put on trial or punished for that.

First of all, nobody knows what happened. You read it was tanks, a helicopter and ground fire. How can you blame anyone if you can't even get the story strait. I researched 6 sites and most of them said different things. That includes British sources. What is clear, is that he'd already been hit before he was in crossfire between the US and Iraqi's. The Iraqi's hit him first. He was in an unmarked vehicle. Should the troops have waited to be fired on by that vehicle?? I think not. What if it had been British troops that killed him?? Would you be demanding punishment then?? I doubt it. It's a war and he was in the crossfire and he knowingly put his life on the line. Period!!

Answer 4

I don't know all the facts & obviously any journalist is at risk in a war but...

"The inquest heard that their vehicles, which were clearly marked as PRESS, were hit by US tanks." BBC

..this along with other facts led to a verdict of ‘unlawful killing’…

As for any ‘special relationship’ it only means something when it suits America …

'Mr McLaughlin (of NUJ) said the US authorities had not only failed to co-operate with the inquest but had actually obstructed it.'

"They have not sent anyone to appear at the inquest and have shown complete contempt for the British legal system and it makes a mockery of the so-called special relationship," BBC

Missing footage…

“Major Kay Roberts, of the Royal Military Police, told the inquest 15 minutes of footage appeared to be missing from a film of the incident which was supplied by the US military.” BBC

I doubt that any American soldier will be held to account.

Answer 5

Why should they!!
First of all i think you should get the mans name correct, his name was Terry Lloyd.
The reason he is dead is because he crossed the front line, got in the middle of a fierce gun fire between Americans, and Insurgents.

The first bullet that hit Mr Lloyd was in fact an Iraq bullet, which he may of survived from, but he should not have been in the centre of a battle in the first place.

When you enter a battle field then you take a risk of being killed.
And people who say he was killed deliberately are complete ars*eholes.

Answer 6

No their leaders should. Generals should follow orders from the elected official. If they disagree with that order they should document their objection and but still follow the order. Otherwise the system of an army falls apart and you'll have military coups.

Answer 7

American soldiers have always been answerable for their crimes.

The real question is if this death was, in fact, a murder, as you claim it was. The evidence does not support your claim.

When you are in a vehicle, in a column of vehicles filled with soldiers heading toward an enemy column, chances are you just might be considered a threat and fired upon.

So, when this guy decided to embed himself with Saddam's troops and move in column with them towards the advancing US forces, he was taking the risk that he would also be fired upon. That's the breaks, but it was a stupid and risky thing to have done in the first place, to embed oneself with Saddam's army.

Not murder. He has only himself to blame for his own demise.

Answer 8

dont agree with what has happened there definately should be a proper investigation but its not all one sided you gotta put yourself in the soldiers position quite hard to do but if your looking over your shoulder at every little thing having people smile at you one minute and then blow you up the next ,seeing all those dead bodies and watching friends be blown up in a cloud of red mist or having lims be blown off this must fuk with there psych as it would you or i,but still not sure a british soldier would have done that but i dont have all the facts.

Answer 9

If a murder occured then yes, I don't know the facts so I can not say whether it was murder. Wasn't Terry Jones one of the Monty Python guys?

Answer 10

let it go. I'm British but what good will it do. It was war. bad things happen in war, innocent people do unfortunately get killed. The soldiers out there are very scared for their lives and sometimes probably shoot innocent people who they think may be the enemy. Sad that he died but put it behind you. easy for people you and I to sit and judge from the comfort of our home, what would you be going through if you was out there?

Answer 11

they should answer for all their crimes, as should America. But we know they wont be held responsible, they never are. They have been killing people for years and they never say sorry, rarely give reasons and never give justice.