NOTE: This is also posted on Joe Gandelman's blog The Moderate Voice.

The gloves have come off in the incident involving the wounding of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and the death of an Italian security agent by U.S. forces.

She's now flatly suggesting that maybe U.S. forces in effect were out to assassinate her. Each statement Sgrena has made has been stronger, more accusatory, and more political as you can see from the updated AP version of this story, which is rapidly turning into a political football with pro and anti-war advocates taking sides according to their beliefs on the war:

ROME - Left-wing journalist Giuliana Sgrena claimed American soldiers gave no warning before they opened fire and said Sunday she could not rule out that U.S. forces intentionally shot at the car carrying her to the Baghdad airport, wounding her and killing the Italian agent who had just won her freedom after a month in captivity.

Intentionally is a PRETTY BIG allegation...even if it's couched in language to allow some "wiggle" room. There is more:

An Italian Cabinet member urged Sgrena, who writes for a communist newspaper that routinely opposes U.S. policy in Iraq to be cautious in her accounts and said the shooting would not affect Italy's support for the Bush administration.

The White House called the shooting a "horrific accident" and restated its promise to investigate fully.

Sgrena's editor at the daily Il Manifesto, Gabriele Polo, said Italian officials told him 300-400 rounds were fired at the car. Italian military officials said two other intelligence agents were wounded in the shooting; U.S. officials said only one other agent was hurt.

Without backing up the claim, Sgrena said she believed it was possible she was targeted because the United States objected to methods used to secure her release.

"The fact that the Americans don't want negotiations to free the hostages is known," the 56-year-old journalist told Sky TG24 television by telephone, her voice hoarse and shaky. "The fact that they do everything to prevent the adoption of this practice to save the lives of people held hostage, everybody knows that. So I don't see why I should rule out that I could have been the target."

Sgrena said she knew nothing about a ransom payment, and no details have emerged about how authorities won her release. An Italian Cabinet minister said money likely changed hands.

Meanwhile, the new website Watching America (see post below) carries this translation of an inflammatory article in Corriere Della Sera:

ROME - You must be careful, because they want to kill to you." These were the words of Giuliana Sgrena's kidnappers before they freed her. Pier Scolari, companion of Giuliana Sgrena, recounted the words of the journalist. "Giuliana had the information.The American soldiers did not want her to leave with her life."

"The American soldiers prevented help from arriving for some minutes — and they prevented anyone from approaching the car," Sgrena told Scolari.

Sources within Italian intelligence [SISMI] do not support this hypothesis. "We cannot exclude the possibility that the Americans wanted to kill Giuliana Sgrena, but they would not, however, have wanted to kill a SUSMI agent, which puts at risk cooperation between the U.S. and Italian intelligence services."

If Scolari's hypothesis is true, according to Italian intelligence, it was badly handled. "It would have been the simplest thing for the Americans to send their agents to suppress the incident and therefore blame the Iraqis, or to send Iraqis to perform the dirty job, rather than commit the act with friendly fire without even succeeding in the attempt."

A transcript of her interview with the BBC is here. Also, the Observer gives some info on reports that a hefty ransom was, in fact, paid to free her:"Italian newspapers reported yesterday that Sgrena had been in the hands of former Saddam loyalists and criminals, and that a ransom of between £4 million and £5 million had been paid for her release." What is happening now?

• Italy's leftist parties are using this to demand Italy pull its troops out of Iraq. The Italian government has no plans to do so but has had to scramble "to contain the damage to itself and to US-Italian relations," the Financial Times reports.
• The issue is a huge one in Italy. The dead bodyguard's body is being honored with an elaborate funeral. Italians have been filing past his coffin.
• The issue is going to be completely exploited for propaganda purposes by those opposed to U.S. Iraq policy throughout Europe in Iraq. The question now posed for U.S. policy makers: how can they quickly and convincingly get 100 percent of the facts out (letting the chips fall where they may) to resolve any questions about this incident?

In fact, there's an inherent problem with checkpoints in Iraq, according to Annia Ciezadlo of The Christian Science Monitor. She writes about all uncertainty zones involved in checkpoints in Iraq...on both sides such as: under Sadaam, idling was risky; American checkpoints often come one right after another and the driver doesn't realize this. Checkpoints in Iraq are traumatic for the drivers AND the soldiers, she writes:

The essential problem with checkpoints is that the Americans don't know if the Iraqis are "friendlies" or not, and the Iraqis don't know what the Americans want them to do.

I always wished that the American commanders who set up these checkpoints could drive through themselves, in a civilian car, so they could see what the experience was like for civilians. But it wouldn't be the same: They already know what an American checkpoint is, and how to act at one - which many Iraqis don't.

Is there a way to do checkpoints right? Perhaps, perhaps not. But it seems that the checkpoint experience perfectly encapsulates the contradictions and miseries and misunderstandings of everyone's common experience - both Iraqis and Americans - in Iraq.

Indeed: contradictions. People with perceptions filtered through a firm belief that they KNOW what happened. And people who are ready and quick to use a still cloudy incident to make a long-held political points.

When the incident took place, it was a news item. Now it has moved into the realm of a political story.

UPDATE: Early this morning a Washington Post-AP report quoted a "U.S. military source" as saying the "main contributing factor" in the shooting death was Italy's failure to tell U.S. soldiers that it was bringing a newly released Italian hostage along the road to the airport:

According to the military source, who said he spoke on condition of anonymity because the incident is under investigation, U.S. soldiers had established an impromptu evening checkpoint at the entrance to the road to the airport about 90 minutes earlier and had stopped other vehicles. They knew a high-level U.S. Embassy official would be moving to the airport on that road, and their aim was to support that movement, he said. But no specific coordination occurred between those involved in Sgrena's rescue and the military unit responsible for the checkpoint, according to the source. The absence of advance communication between the Italians and the U.S. soldiers at the checkpoint appears to have put the occupants of the car in grave jeopardy, given what many U.S. officials describe as the military's standard practice of firing at onrushing cars from their checkpoints in Iraq.

UPDATE II: Now it turns out that the Italian bigwigs may have not informed Americans about a huge ransom it was paying to free the journalist — money that it's clear will help fund the kidnappers' future operations. The Washington Times reports:

ROME — Italian agents likely withheld information from U.S. counterparts about a cash-for-freedom deal with gunmen holding an Italian hostage for fear that Americans might block the trade, Italian news reports said yesterday.

The decision by operatives of Italy's SISMI military intelligence service to keep the CIA in the dark about the deal for the release of reporter Giuliana Sgrena, might have "short-circuited" communications with U.S. forces controlling the road from Baghdad to the city's airport, the newspaper La Stampa said.

That would help explain why American troops opened fire on a car whisking the released hostage to a waiting airplane, wounding Miss Sgrena and killing the Italian intelligence operative who had just negotiated her release.

How much was the ransom? Published reports vary, but it was BIG. The Australian reports:"Italian newspaper Corriere della Sera reported yesterday that the Italian Government had paid a ransom of between E6-8million ($10-13.4million) to buy Sgrena's freedom. It also claimed the car's injured driver told Italian investigators the Americans "knew everything about our mission".

So we have contradictions within contradictions..

ROUNDUP: OTHER VOICES OF VARYING OPINIONS ON THIS ISSUE:

--Wizbang's Jay Tea says it sounds as if the military was incompetent, given all the shots that were reportedly fired:

I have to say I am absolutely disgusted with our military this afternoon in regards to Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's treatment at the hands our military....An anti-American "journalist" for a Communist newspaper is allegedly "captured" by insurgents, then released. On her way out, our forces shoot 300 to 400 rounds at their car. And the result of all that firepower? One killed, three injured — none apparently very seriously. Then they treat them and send them home. Obviously all that money we've spent on training and equipment has gone to waste if our forces are performing that poorly.

--Americablog points to the reported ransom:"So Bush's buddy Berlusconi is paying money to terrorists so they can buy more weapons to kill more US troops and more Americans on airplanes. Isn't that special. Are we winning yet?...Yeah, wonder if the MSM is even going to look into her charges."
--Michelle Malkin (as usual) has a ton of great links, succinctly packaged, and notes the "Easonseque" assertions (that Americans deliberately try to whack journalists). --The Mahablog:"I agree with Dr. Atrios that we should not jump to conclusions about the shooting of Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena and the killing of agent Nicola Calipari. War zones by nature are very dangerous places, which is one of several reasons not to start wars before all other options are exhausted. Ah-hem."
--Baldilocks:"God rest Mr. Calipari. Too bad he had to give his life to save such a one as this....(Boy, I’m glad I went to church before I read that steaming pile.)Don’t you love the “logic” and the narcissism? The soldiers allegedly got the word from on high to kill her all-important self after the ransom was paid because Washington is opposed to ransom payments. And killing her would somehow stop Italy and other Coalition Partners from paying ransom for hostages taken by terrorists."
--Little Green Footballs:"Three hundred to four hundred rounds from an armored vehicle ... and there were survivors? OK, go ahead, pull my other leg.Why is anyone taking these obviously false statements seriously?"
--Premptive Karma:"Ultimately I think this newest report underscores my concern about what kind of long-term problems we are creating by leaving a swath of collateral damage in our wake. Worst of all, it all traces back to the profoundly unrealistic expectations that this Administration had of how we would be received by the Iraqis once Saddam was toppled. How many on all sides have died or been disfigured as a direct result? We will probably never know."
--Arthur Chrenkoff:

Now, there are many people from around the world, from Eason Jordan to the management of Al-Jazeera, who think that the US army is actually targeting journalists in Iraq. But if you are of an less excitable predisposition, you have to ask yourself why on earth would the Americans want to kill the nationals of one of their staunchest allies in Iraq. But never mind why; I'm sure some nut will be pretty soon come up with an appropriate conspiracy theory; the real questions is - why that way? The critics think America Machiavellian enough to want to kill the Italians, and at the same time stupid enough to do it a way that created one of the more serious diplomatic incidents since the start of the war. Can't have it both ways, I'm afraid... Let the proper investigation have a look at the facts, though, before we start invoking Grassy Knolls.

--Diggers Realm:"This woman is ungrateful and very unintelligent. To think that US forces would fire on a hostage just released because "Americans do not like negotiations to free hostages" is so absurdly ignorant that words cannot describe my disbelief. If they deliberately wanted them killed why didn't they just walk up to the vehicle and start shooting them rather than immediately taking Sgrena to medical facilities?"
--Roger Simon attempts to unravel the mystery:

Suppose it was the "insurgents" themselves, through a cut-out obviously, who alerted the Americans to Sgrena and her protectors, describing their car as something other than it was — a suicide bomber, perhaps, or some other possible terrorist-related vehicle. Of course, their motivation would have been to make the Americans look bad, no matter what resulted. Sgrena and the others would just have been collateral damage. And that, indeed, is what has happened. Of course, this is just a plot by a mystery writer. And not even a particularly good one.

--Cold Fury:"How genuine, indeed, was the “kidnapping”?...Fortunately, as I say, most of these allegations are easily checked; the only ones for which there may not be objective evidence are the imposition of some secret conditions by the terrorists for Sgrena’s release, and the degree of co-operation between the Islamist thugs and Sgrena’s handlers. That, unfortunately, is the difference between Left and Right: the Left invents unfalsifiable scenarios and ignores facts; we require, both for ourselves and others, proof of our ideas."
--Crooks And Liars (The Video Blogger) has some more details of what she told Italian magistrates. C&L writes:"This is a terrible story. I don't want to judge this tragedy too early.."
--Andrew Olmsted helped train troops. Read his ENTIRE POST but here is part of it:

Rest assured that no one in Italy is being quoted about how horrible the terrorists who kidnapped Ms. Sgrena are. The vitriol is all reserved for us horrible Americans. Talk about a publicity windfall...



I've been Iraq-bound training units on how to run traffic control points (TCPs) just like the one that fired on Ms. Sgrena's vehicle for most of the past year. The biggest threat such units face is a vehicle borne improvised explosive device (i.e. a car bomb) detonating in their midst, so the TCPs are designed to stop vehicles well away from their center, allowing the minimum number of soldiers to risk contact with an approaching vehicle. Vehicles which approach a TCP and fail to stop are dealt with very simply: they are engaged with rifle and machine gun fire because they may be VBIEDs which could destroy the entire TCP. Because this threatens to lead to accidental killings like that involving Ms. Sgrena, we warn units to place signs well forward of the TCP telling drivers they are approaching a TCP and need to slow down and stop or they will be fired upon. The TCP is a delicate balance between protection of the soldiers manning the TCP and protecting the innocent people who come through the TCP... Which sounds more likely? A U.S. death squad is able to ambush precisely the right car, but fails to finish off its target? Or a tragic misunderstanding possibly predicated by the driver of the Italian vehicle forgetting that the American soldiers at the TCP weren't privy to the same knowledge he was about the threat presented by the car?

Posted By Joe Gandelman at March 7, 2005 09:21 AM | TrackBack