"Sophy Miller is taking on the might of an entire army"

[Englander]

April 18th 2005

It is 11pm on a Friday and the town of Rafah in the Gaza Strip is silent. The television journalist James Miller walks slowly out onto the veranda of a house with two members of his film crew. He is holding a white flag in his hand. The letters TV are clearly emblazoned on his helmet. James calls out to the Israeli soldiers, who have been watching his team at work in the town for three days. He asks permission to leave the area. Standing still, he shines a torch on the white flag, the internationally recognised peace sign. He shouts hello towards the two armoured personnel carriers sitting about 250 feet away. His voice echoes in the darkness.

A rifle shot suddenly cracks above his head. James and his colleagues, Sairi Shah and Daniel Edge, freeze to the spot, completely motionless. James keeps the white flag held up. Time stands still for 13 seconds; then another bullet explodes straight into James's neck – the unprotected area between his flak jacket and his helmet. It kills the 34-year-old father of two almost instantly. A classic sniper's hit.

More shots shatter the black sky and the Palestinians living nearby start screaming in Arabic: "They've shot the journalist! They've shot the journalist! The soldiers have shot the journalist …"

Not long afterwards, James's wife Sophy is awoken at the family home in Devon. She stumbles out of bed to take a call from his colleagues that will change her life for ever; the terrible news that her young children, two-year-old Alexander and five-month-old Lottie, have lost their daddy.
That was two years ago: May 2, 2003. Today, Sophy is sitting on a brown leather sofa in a pub in Battersea, south London, sipping a Coke. Alexander and Lottie are being looked after at a friend's house nearby. The late-afternoon spring sunshine streams in through patio doors to warm the lounge area, occasionally glinting off Sophy's double-banded gold wedding ring. Outside, birds are welcoming the change in season. It all seems quintessentially British, and a million miles away from the religious violence in the Middle East.

Much,much more at;
The Herald

[Englander]

1. Posthumous BAFTA win for filmmaker

"8:07am Wednesday 20th April 2005

THE mother of a British filmmaker killed in the Gaza Strip has spoken out about her family's "bittersweet" week.

James Miller was awarded a posthumous BAFTA on Sunday night for the documentary he was making at the time he was shot dead two years ago.

But just days earlier his family discovered the Israeli soldier implicated in his killing was to walk free.

Mr Miller, who went to Notre Dame Primary School, Eglinton Road, Woolwich, was killed in May 2003 while making Death in Gaza, a documentary about Palestinian children."

http://www.thisislocallondon.co.uk/news/topstories/display.var.589077.0.posthumous_bafta_win_for_filmmaker.php

http://www.hbo.com/docs/programs/death_in_gaza/

[mhr]

2. One More Causality Of The Bush-Sharon Alliance

It is clear that Bush-Sharon plan to remake the middle east at all costs. Innocent bystanders are mere impediments to be glossed over with indifference. Grieving widows are mere inconveniences to be dismissed with impunity.

[pelsar]

3. Englander...

Why – despite eyewitnesses, a videotape of the killing made at the time by another film crew,

wheres this video?....whether the light/white flag was actually visable in the dark night would be interesting to know...I couldnt find the video.....and looking through night vision goggles is hardly like daytime, its an improvement but far from being definitive

[Guy_Montag]

4. I've seen the video, it's taken through a night vision camera,

but I can't remember it well enough to comment about the flag.

I seem to remember he had a flak jacket with PRESS or something on it - in big white letters.

[Englander]

5. I would suggest....

finding yerself a copy of "Death In Gaza".

The footage of the 2nd crew features in the film.

The only argument about this incident is why it happened,
not how. Maybe after watching the film,you can explain to me
why Mr Miller was shot in the neck,in the V-shaped gap of
his bullet proof-vest.

This was a deliberate act of murder;there is no debate
about that.I'd like to know why it happened,or why the
Israeli Authorities feel they have anything to gain by
not prosecuting this soldier.

[pelsar]

6. shot on purpose....

my question is simply what the solider saw.....i'm not argueing that it was a "stray bullet"

Nor will the video show all the information since it was taken from a different angle, but questions like was the flag visable, was it flapping or was it just against the pole, how long was the pole, did it mimic an weapon at that distance.....as seen through night vision goggles?

I've spent much time peering very hard in night goggles trying to understand what I am looking at, whats being held, which way they are walking..and that was not at a time of intense pressure...

[Englander]

7. And how would I know "what the soldier saw"?

Again,why was Mr Miller killed,& why do the GOI
feel there's anything to be gained by not
prosecuting this soldier?

If "Lt. H." were to be charged with manslaughter,or
whatever the equivalent is,it would do wonders for
the perception of Israel aboard. The World looks on,
& sees a grieving widow battle for justice for her
murdered husband; it sees a State,in this case Israel,
defend the indefensible.

Didn't Israel used to care about World opinion?
It is clear that Miller's family are only to be satisfied
when "H." is in court on trial for the murder of James
Miller. I'd suggest that the sooner the GOI realizes that,
the better.

[pelsar]

9. Englander....what I know....

the IDF is protecting it own...its something every organization does. I know you feel strong about this (to say the least)...but you'll probably find the same reaction within the British army to "bloody sunday" even though I dont know the details.

The soldier in the field depends upon his buddies and the larger army to back him up....as he is in put in situations where he is making decisions based on a "rule book" written by some guy sitting at a desk who doesnt know which end of the rifle is up....and even if he does know which end, he probably was never in the situation the soldier find himself.

more than that, soldiers are taught to be aggressive, shoot first, thats what makes a winning army.....and it also results in wrong killings. Kill that bad guy your a hero, kill the wrong guy....

anyway thats what its all about, the soldier in the field has to feel that the army/his buddies will back him up, otherwise he wont take the necessary chances and make the judgements take the initiative that makes for a superior army...it also results in mistakes, just like in civilian life...the difference being the obvious.

Like i said, to understand why, check into why the british army has been dragging its feet about bloody sunday....is the inquiry still going on?

anyway hopefully that explains at least the "why" the IDF/GOI are reluctant to bring this to trial.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pelsar]

12. coastie.....

its not the kind of thing that can ever be explained...but what makes it interesting is that for those who have never been, they seem to know. i just dont get why they think they know.

i tend to think of it as 45yr old homosexual bachelor giving hetro marriage advice to his friends. We would all laugh at the nerve of that bachelor...who does he think he is, what can he possibly understand.

yet when it comes to the far more difficult split second decisions made by soldiers in the field......everybody seems to know what the soldier saw and know why he did what he did...

for those who dont: decisions are made by some of the following aspects, and take note they are also affect one another and are in no particular order:
fatigue, experience, ego, ignorence, fear, mood, knowledge, skill, intelligence, ambition, adrenalin, disclipline, confidence, yesterdays events, weather, equipment, buddies, vision clarity, clothes being worn, hunger, thirst.....basically everything and everything. Which affects the soldiers judgement at any one time, which affects him more than the others?...it depends upon the environment....the one where his life and his buddies are being threatened either directly or indirectly

[Guy_Montag]

13. While I fit into your analogy might I point out

There was no enemy fire. What was the hurry given that
the targets were not moving? In fact it took
13 seconds between the first shot & the second one. And despite the fog of war & inability to see the flag, the shot was in the neck.

Seems to me, the soldier had plenty of time to take the perfect shot. I accept I've never been in that position but on the whole I suspect that a group of enemy combatants will not freeze when shot at. Maybe one will, but several? & holding a white flag too.

[Coastie for Truth]

14. Royal Highlanders? "The Ladies from Hell"

I served on Cuban Interdiction Patrol in the Atlantic.

<>
<>

[pelsar]

15. guy_montag...

precisly, you've just explained how much you dont understand:

There was no enemy fire. that area is known for its palestenian snipers....snipers dont shoot en mass...they shoot a single bullet...so the "no enemy fire" is a mute point. The danger, the pressure is there just by sticking your head out....

I have no doubt the shot was intentional, it was very precise, the question is in the identification....and yes people do freeze.... but I havent been able to find the movie on the internet so I'll stop with that.

the questions that are in my mind, is what did they look like via the officers night vision goggles...the shadows, the greenish gray areas, the angle of the flag, what was the ambient light like, how did it reflect.......the distance between them......the kind of stuff that can only be guessed at. but its the kind of stuff that makes the difference in identification.

[Englander]

18. And you've just identified yer ignorance of the incident...

This is the clearest incident I've ever seen
of deliberate murder by a soldier,on a civilian
that is clearly & obviously identifiable as a
civilian TV cameraman. The British film crew bent over
backwards & did triple somersaults through a hoop to make sure
that any IDF soldiers in the area knew exactly who they
were and where they were & what they were doing.

I've just seen the report about the appeal of the acquital.
I would hope that Mandelblit realizes that "H" fucked up
to the Nth degree,& charges him with serious criminal offences.

Y'know,there's always a first time for everything,eh?

[pelsar]

20. englander.....everybody knew?

The British film crew bent over
backwards & did triple somersaults through a hoop to make sure
that any IDF soldiers in the area knew exactly who they
were and where they were & what they were doing.

this is the "usual" excuse when a journalist is killed "that everybody knew" (it seems to come up everytime).....armys units are beuracracies with multiple unit in the field many times moving constantly. Which units knew? did the info get to the guys in the field?....and when did the info get to whom? And when they were walking around, where were they?....who knew about it? In my own experiences...info is many times late and "out of date" meaning no longer relevant.

the fact that there are journalists "in the area" is almost a constant in gaza as is the "their might be "foreigners" there as well. So?.....because the "army" knew, means NOTHING when an individual soldier is peering through night goggles looking the guys who might shoot at them. First and formost he is looking for people carrying weapons (sticks), that takes precedent, everything else is secondary.

and the video is not from the soldiers view...so what can it possible prove?

for those of us who have been in those situations, peering through night goggles, its hardly a clear case, its more of an art.... what the journalists did and whom they talked to several hours earlier has no bearing on what the soldier saw, thought and his reaction.

[Englander]

21. If you're not aware of the details of the case...

then here's an appropriate smiley; :banghead:

What do you think of Mandelblit's appeal?
Do you think he's going after a cover-up,
or a serious prosecution?

[pelsar]

22. prosecution...

actually I'm not that familiar with the details of the prosecution, since I cant imagine it being any kind of real justice....

...playing around in a "pseudo civilian/military"court within a military environment means "makeing up the rules as you go along, the result of the intl pressure.

and what it comes down to is...what did the soldier see through his own scope...or what did he believe he saw......and that is simply beyond the means of any court.

so i go for a slap on the wrist

[Englander]

23. About "Bloody Sunday"..

After four years, the Bloody Sunday/Saville Inquiry
has finished taking evidence & will probably report this
year. All the evidence suggests that there may have been
IRA gunmen present at the march,but all the protesters
shot/killed by the Paras were innocent, & not carrying
any weapons.

There are two more inquiries underway regarding NI, investigating
the murders of the civil-rights lawyers,Pat Finucane,
& Rosemary Nelson.They were killed by Protestant/Loyalist
paramilitaries. As another inquiry reported a couple of years
ago,there'll be a lot of evidence given about the collusion
between British MI/RUC Special Branch & the Loyalists.

Maybe the GOI should try holding inquiries,Brit-style;
First get a judge to make a report/whitewash/cover-up,
& then a decade or so later on get another judge to finally
discover the truth of what happened? :)

[pelsar]

24. bloody sunday..

that scenario is way too expensive...i think i came across 115million pounds, or something like that..we can build a lot more settlements with that kind of money! ;)

[eyl]

16. So, you suggest he be put on trial

solely for PR purposes? Those kind of trials have a fairly dubious history. Given also that, according to the IDF, there isn't enough evidence to prosecute*, what do you think the result would be when he's acquited?

And while I can't be sure what Israel's government or the IDF brass are thinking, if their thinking even echoes that of the man of the street, by now they don't really care about world opinion (to put it politely).

*This kind of crime is especially hard to prosecute; essentially, it comes down to what the officer in question knew and thought.

[newyorican]

17. to put it realistically...

"And while I can't be sure what Israel's government or the IDF brass are thinking, if their thinking even echoes that of the man of the street, by now they don't really care about world opinion (to put it politely)."

Unless the topic is about charges (real or no) of anti-semitism. Then the bleating about how nobody cares or pays attention is endless.

Oh the irony of selective concern. Some will never get it, others will choose not to.

[Englander]

19. Good.Grief. (slight return).

--"So, you suggest he be put on trial solely for PR purposes?"

No, because "H" killed an unarmed civilian,in cold blood,no less.

[bemildred]

8. IDF reviews acquittal of officer who killed UK journalist

Chief Military Prosecutor Brigadier General Avihai Mandelblit Thursday appealed against the acquittal of an Israel Defense Forces officer who had opened fire during an incident in which a British photojournalist was killed in the Gaza Strip almost two years ago.

The photographer, James Miller, was shot dead during a night-time incident in Rafah in southern Gaza in May 2003 while he was filming a movie on the lives of Palestinian children during the intifada.

The officer who was commanding the unit, a first lieutenant in the Bedouin Desert Reconnaissance Battalion, was acquitted by the IDF Southern Command Chief of Staff Brigadier General Guy Tzur.

---

Britain's ambassador to Israel Simon McDonald last week sent a letter to Defense Minister Shaul Mofaz, Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom, and IDF Chief of Staff Moshe Ya'alon, in which he expressed the concern of the British government over the decision.

Haaretz

[Coastie for Truth]

10. My cousin was killed in a terror explosion on Dizengoff

--she was killed in an explosion as she and her mom were walking out of a shop with her wedding gown for the her wedding scheduled to be a week later.

MY COUSIN PHIL WAS KILLED BY U.S. FRIENDLY FIRE ON JULY 3, 1964 - HE WAS LIKE AN OLDER BROTHER TO ME.

I was a Casualty Assistance Case Officer (work with the family on "arrangement" and "paper work") for a CG sailor killed by US Friendly Fire" in Viet Nam - who then became the victim of a cover up by founders of the Swift Boat Sailors for Truth - like John Kerry - a cover up that lasted for over 20 years.
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/history/WEBCUTTERS/Point_Welcome.html
http://www.aug.edu/~libwrw/ptwelcome/PointWelcome2.html
http://www.usni.org/navalhistory/Articles98/NHwells.htm


War is hell - innocent people get killed.

Asymmetrical war is even more hellish - even more innocent people get killed on both sides. And every one of those deaths is a tragedy.

I do not attack the United States for the deaths of my cousin Phil - or of the Pt Welcome sailors- but I do blame the "small unit level" command structures and the next level or two up the hierarchy.