Eason Jordan clarifies comments

A number of blogs have been discussing Rony Abovitz's account of remarks made by CNN's Eason Jordan about journalists being killed by U.S. troops in Iraq.  Since no transcript or recording has been available so far, I have emailed Mr. Jordan for clarification. Here is his response:

Rebecca:

Here's what's important.  First, I stressed insurgents are to blame for the vast majority of the 63 journalist deaths in Iraq.  Second, when Congressman Franks said the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the unfortunate victims of "collateral damage," I felt compelled to dispute that by pointing out journalists in Iraq are being targeted -- I did not say all journalists killed were targeted, but that some were shot at on purpose and were not collateral damage victims.  In response to a question about whether I believed the U.S. military meant to kill journalists in Iraq, I said, no, I did not believe the U.S. military was trying to kill journalists in Iraq.  Yet, unfortunately, U.S. forces have killed several people who turned out to be journalists.  In several cases, the U.S. troops who killed those people aimed and fired at them, not knowing they were shooting at journalists.  However tragic and, in hindsight, by Pentagon admission, a mistake, such a killing does not fall into the "collateral damage" category.  In Iraq and Washington, I have worked closely and constructively with U.S. military and civilian leaders in an effort to heighten the odds of survival for the courageous journalists in Iraq.

Eason

In a follow-up email he added:

Most importantly, I do not believe the U.S. is trying to kill journalists in Iraq.  To the contrary, the U.S. military has worked hard to protect journalists in Iraq.  Nevertheless, there have been several tragic episodes in which U.S. forces killed journalists in what turned out to be cases not of collateral damage but of mistaken identity.  Feel free to paste that, too.

UPDATE: After I had already posted the above, I received the following:

To be clear, I do not believe the U.S. military is trying to kill journalists in Iraq.  But the U.S. military has killed several journalists in Iraq in cases of mistaken identity.  The reason the word "targeted" came up at all is because I was responding to a comment by Congressman Franks, who said he believed the 63 journalists killed in Iraq were the victims of "collateral damage."  Since three of my CNN colleagues and many other journalists have been killed on purpose in Iraq, I disputed the "collateral damage" statement, saying, unfortunately, many journalists -- not all -- killed in Iraq were indeed targeted.  When someone aims a gun at someone and pulls the trigger and then learns later the person fired at was actually a journalist, an apology is appropriate and is accepted, and I believe those apologies to be genuine.  But such a killing is a tragic case of mistaken identity, not a case of "collateral damage."  That is the distinction I was trying to make even if I did not make it clearly at the time.  Further, I have worked closely with the U.S. military for months in an effort to achieve a mutual goal: keeping journalists in Iraq safe and alive.

Comments

[Blank]

Even Jordan's backpedalling is deceitful. "Targetting Journalists' means deliberately aiming at journalists. Aiming at journalists you mistakenly believe to be legitimate targets is most definitely part of 'collateral damage' and is not 'targetting journalists'

Furthermore, these terms are not vague flexible abstractions, they are real words, with real meanings, and those meanings are clarified in military law, both US (UCMJ) and international (Geneva conventions etc).

One of the examples Jordan gave of 'targetting journalists' is an incident during the initial move into Baghdad. US troops came under artillery fire, SIGINT picked up Iraqis adjusting the fire (making far more accurate and deadly). The unit tried to find the artillery observer adjusting the fire onto them and saw two men on a hotel balcony with a bunch of electronic equipment taking a lot of interest in them and promptly aimed at and hit them. It turns out that they were journalists and not the artillery spotters. That is a very clear case of collateral damage...exactly what Eason Jordan said it wasn't. And it most certainly is not 'targetting journalists'

[Dave]

Jordan is even now laboring under a dreadful misunderstanding of how war works.

If I were a soldier, and I had shot down a journalist who I believed was the enemy, I would not be the least bit inclined to apologize. It is a journalist's responsibility, when not specifically under military protection and following military orders, to keep himself out of battle situations and to make sure HE ISN"T MISTAKEN FOR THE ENEMY. If the enemy is using journalist's appearance, that is even more reason to stay out of battle zones.

Those war correspondents are brave people, but they take their lives in their hands, and getting killed is part of their risk. The American military is just doing the job they are on scene to do. If they held fire because they thought the enemy might just be a journalist, they would get their fellow soldiers killed. The military is what it is..

Should a freeway motorist apologize to a person that was run over because he ran across a busy freeway?

The moral of this story is, GET YOURSELF EMBEDDED, so that you are officially under troops' protection. Trouble is, you have to follow their orders too. But at least you get to LIVE.

[Pete]

Sounds like some Ward Churchillesque backpeddling.

Just the transcript, Eason, just the transcript...

distrudeaupia.blog-city.com

[Mark]

Save Jordan's email above. It can be used as evidence against him when the transcprits of the conference are made available. Once the transcript is released Jordan is going down for being a lying, anti-American, anti-military "journalist". The blogosphere took Rather and CBS down a couple notches. Now it's Jordan and CNN's turn.

[chachi]

The following would be the Eason Jordan approach to blogging on Eason Jordan.

I'm standing up for Eason Jordan. I think it's perfectly OK for a guy with a history of making empty accusations about US military crimes to attempt a climb out irrelevancy as deep as CNN's by playing to the competition from Al-Jazeera.

I even think it's reasonable that he ignored torture and rape committed by Saddam in order that CNN could have a Baghdad address. Besides, how would Mr. Jordan have been able to make the friendly terrorist contacts he did in order to get Daniel Pearl abducted and murdered just so he could bang his wife? Is Mr. Jordan paying royalties to the terrorists by slandering the American military and inciting further violence?

I blocked CNN from my satellite a couple years ago and judging by your ratings, so have all but a little less that a half dozen people. It's no wonder, when your senior news nut slimes the military and lays the wood to the wife a guy he helped kill.

chachi
www.spanktuary.blogspot.com