Bloodthirsty US Troops Murder Prize-Winning Journalist

[shemp]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A8400-2003Aug18.html

Mazen Dana, a 43-year-old journalist, was killed by U.S. soldiers Sunday while working outside Abu Ghraib prison on Baghdad's outskirts after they apparently mistook his camera for a rocket-propelled grenade. His colleague, Nael Shyoukhi, said that shortly before the shooting a U.S. soldier at the prison had granted them permission to film. At least a half-dozen other journalists -- cameramen, photographers and reporters -- were working nearby, along a barren expanse intersected by a busy highway.

[Skeptical Greg]

A tragic incident.

[Aoidoi]

Hey, can you prove that camera wasn't loaded? ;)

The longer we're there, the more blood will be on our hands. Unfortunately, if we cut and run I suspect it will make the situation even worse. We're now Douglas Adam's couch... we can't go forward, and we can't go back.

[HarryKeogh]

bloodthirsty or scared sh#tless?

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by HarryKeogh
bloodthirsty or scared sh#tless? Why not both?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Why not both?

I have yet to see a blood thirsty person scared enough to piss their pants. Rage tends to suppress fear.

If you think somebody is pointing an RPG at you, fear is the most likely emotion to show up.

[arcticpenguin]

I wonder if his buddies will develop the film that was in his camera (or is it all digital these days?) Perhaps he could win another prize with his last photos.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by Doubt


I have yet to see a blood thirsty person scared enough to piss their pants. Rage tends to suppress fear.

If you think somebody is pointing an RPG at you, fear is the most likely emotion to show up. Fear tends to lead to the fight or flight response, right? If the response is always "fight", I'd call that blood thirsty. Blood thirsty does not necessitate anger, IMHO.

[Mike B.]

Doesn't bloodthirsty imply they want to kill as many people as possible?

I think it is a poor choice of words.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by arcticpenguin
I wonder if his buddies will develop the film that was in his camera (or is it all digital these days?) Perhaps he could win another prize with his last photos.

Trust you to ruin a solemn moment...

http://www.gamers-forums.com/smilies/cwm/cwm/spit.gif

[PogoPedant]

I belive the pictures have already been shown on New Zealand television. However, it was in the early morning hours I saw this, so I cannot be sure, could be the gunshot heard and the camera falling to the ground was some other incident...

[Crossbow]

Well I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later, but I am still depressed about it all the same.

Just the other day, and Iraqi was killed after a banner was accidently brought down by a US helicopter. And of course, just about every day at least one American soldier is killed in Iraq due to hostile action.

Ugh!

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Crossbow
Well I guess it was bound to happen sooner or later, but I am still depressed about it all the same.

Just the other day, and Iraqi was killed after a banner was accidently brought down by a US helicopter. And of course, just about every day at least one American soldier is killed in Iraq due to hostile action.

Ugh!

The death toll is now 17 journalists. That seems to be incredibly high.

Don't forget the number of suicides in the US armed forces. This is not big news, but morale must be rock bottom in many areas.

[WildCat]

Maybe it would be wise for journalists to paint their cameras and other gear (such as the helmets they wear in war zones) bright orange so they're more easily identified, kind of like the way toy guns are so police don't mistake them for real weapons. It's easy to see how young troops under guerilla attacks could shoot someone who jumps out of a car w/ a black thing on his shoulder aimed at them.
I've seen many journalists in this war dressed in full combat fatigues, not easy to tell them from combatants IMHO.

[subgenius]

Can't agree with the characterization of bloodthirsty, especially as applied to the particular guy(s) who shot the poor SOB.
There is a great deal of "assuming the risk" on the part of journalists in a combat zone. I sure wouldn't do it.
Without knowing more, my assumption, and its just that, is that the one(s) who killed him are devastated.
Try and put yourself in their (the soldiers) shoes.
Might be a good time to assess the wisdom of pointing those things (cameras). Maybe big bright colorful markings like they require on toy guns.
(I realize that the ones with real weapons could then mimic that.)
I really don't think there's any joy in Mudville over his death.

[Mr Manifesto]

While it doesn't confirm whether or not the journalist in question was clearly marked, this (http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0326/p06s02-wogn.html) article may give an explanation as to why he wasn't marked out. If he wasn't.

Also of interest:

As a rule, journalists believe in being conspicuous in war zones.

But as the article suggests, this journalist may have chosen not to stand out for fear of sniper attacks.

[subgenius]

From the link above:
"Sometimes you just can't win," says Cameron. "We might well be safer covering the war in southern Iraq, rather than waiting here for the chance to do so."

Assumption of risk.

Not to be taken for justifying malice if that is shown.

They (journalists) appear to be intentional targets of the Iraqi insurgents.

[RandFan]

Originally posted by subgenius
Can't agree with the characterization of bloodthirsty, especially as applied to the particular guy(s) who shot the poor SOB.
There is a great deal of "assuming the risk" on the part of journalists in a combat zone. I sure wouldn't do it.
Without knowing more, my assumption, and its just that, is that the one(s) who killed him are devastated.
Try and put yourself in their (the soldiers) shoes.
Might be a good time to assess the wisdom of pointing those things (cameras). Maybe big bright colorful markings like they require on toy guns.
(I realize that the ones with real weapons could then mimic that.)
I really don't think there's any joy in Mudville over his death. Another total agreement. :)

[Jon_in_london]

The footage has been released already.

You see a tank coming towards the camera, vaguely hear a couple of cracks then the camera tumbles to the ground.

Fin.

[bangdazap]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/08/17/1061059719776.html
"I hope I get to kill an Iraqi tonight."

[Mr Manifesto]

There's a magic in the call from the mosques in the pink light of a Baghdad evening. But at a United States base across the road from a small, battle-scarred place of prayer in suburban Aadamiyah the chant irritates a young American soldier.

"I want to use those damned speakers for shooting practice," he snaps.


Lord, forgive them...

[T'ai Chi]

Those idiotic "soldiers" should be made civilians, immediately.

It is the military, so they will do the entirely wrong thing, and nothing will happen to discipline those soldiers.

[PygmyPlaidGiraffe]

Originally posted by a_unique_person


The death toll is now 17 journalists. That seems to be incredibly high.

Don't forget the number of suicides in the US armed forces. This is not big news, but morale must be rock bottom in many areas.

The death toll (17 journalists) seems incredibly high compared to what? the number of pancakes served at an International House of Pancakes?

Suicides within the ranks of US forces in Iraq? What are your sources, el Jazera? Sounds like propaganda. Cite sources?

I can't forget about the (vague) number of suicides that I have neither heard about nor find any references to.

Why must morale be rock bottom in most areas? What areas? Cite sources please. What evidence is there that the men and women in the armed forces are experiencing undue psychological stress and having trouble coping? If there are affected men and women are their symptoms going unnoticed and untreated?

I would imagine that there are some avenues to communicate and get treatment for stress.

[Shaun from Scotland]

Just another instance in a long list of young, scared soldiers shooting when they shouldn't.

Happened in Aden. Happened in Northern Ireland. It will happen in Iraq.

C'est la Guerre....

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Shaun from Scotland
Just another incient in a long list of young, scared soldiers shooting when they shouldn't.

Happened in Aden. Happened in Northern Ireland. It will happen in Iraq.

C'est la Guerre....
And when its "him or me" guess which we all choose?

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Upchurch
Fear tends to lead to the fight or flight response, right? If the response is always "fight", I'd call that blood thirsty. Blood thirsty does not necessitate anger, IMHO.

Most soliders fight so as not to let the other guys down. They are more afraid of letting down their unit then they are of getting killed. Blood thirst is not the norm.

A good book that has detail on what happens in the mind of a soldier:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1565843436/qid=1061322699/sr=2-1/ref=sr_2_1/104-8589696-7131933

"The Good War: An Oral History of World War Two" by Studs Terkel

It was required reading when I was in ROTC. The author is not a big fan of the military.

[peptoabysmal]

From the story mentioned in the original post:


On average, U.S. soldiers come under attack a dozen times a day, usually with a mix of rocket-propelled grenades, improvised mines, mortars and small-arms fire. Since President Bush declared major combat over on May 1, at least 58 have been killed in action and hundreds more wounded. Under the current rules of engagement, Shields said, troops do not fire warning shots.

"It's still a battlefield," he said.


I'd say that the terrorists themselves and the journalists who are eager to get the top selling story are just as much to blame as a soldier's quick trigger finger. The soldier did what he was trained to do, shoot at anything that aims at him.

I'll bet that this soldier will have nightmares about this incident for years to come. Some of us are still re-living Viet Nam to this day.

[Jon_in_london]

Originally posted by peptoabysmal
I'll bet that this soldier will have nightmares about this incident for years to come. Some of us are still re-living Viet Nam to this day.

Shame, poor soldier. Never mind about the journalist's family though. Dirty arabs anyway.

[Garrette]

Originally posted by Jon in London
Shame, poor soldier. Never mind about the journalist's family though. Dirty arabs anyway

Uncalled for, Jon. The OP wasn't about the journalist's family but was about the characterization of the soldier. That's what pepto addressed.

Nothing in pepto's post implied a disregard for the journalist or his family, nor any xenophobia.

Then again, I'm biased, because I agree with him.

[Lemastre]

I wonder how many tears are shed in the Pentagon when a journalist is taken out of action. I imagine the administration would as soon its generally inept managment of the occupation not be recorded in great detail. The more threatened the press feels, the less likely it is to venture out. Of course, killing a native cameraman only complicates the problems of occupation further. With the occupation force under siege from all sides, soldiers are likely to shoot first and ask later, so no one is safe when they are about.

[Garrette]

I can't talk about tears at the Pentagon itself right now, but the military deeply and sincerely regrets when a soldier kills an innocent--any innocent. The soldier himself, if he is like other soldiers, is tormenting himself; his chain of command is questioning itself over whether they provided enough guidance and support. The higher leaders are reviewing the Rules of Engagement they promulgate.

They may be figurative, but the tears are there.

Regarding any ineptness in the military's management of the occupation (your term), you will need to be more specific. Are you saying the military aspect of it is inept? Or the political aspect? If the latter, then you need to turn your attention to CPA and the State Department.

[rikzilla]

Shemp,

Your ad-hom description of courageous American soldiers shows your liberal loathing for the military. You are a troll.

You call an American soldier who accidentally shot a journalist "bloodthirsty", yet don't even bother to comment on a thread about the terrorist bombing of the UN HQ in Baghdad that killed 20. Not to mention the cowardly bus attack in Israel that left so many dead and maimed. I suppose next GWB will be blamed for a flawed "road map" instead of placing the blame on the actual murderers.

Yet even in that UN bombing thread, liberal hatred for GWB and America are rampant.

So, what is with the liberal compulsion to slander America? The country we're supposed to believe liberals love every bit as much as the next guy. :rolleyes:

-z

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by rikzilla
Shemp,

Your ad-hom description of courageous American soldiers shows your liberal loathing for the military. You are a troll.

You call an American soldier who accidentally shot a journalist "bloodthirsty", yet don't even bother to comment on a thread about the terrorist bombing of the UN HQ in Baghdad that killed 20. Not to mention the cowardly bus attack in Israel that left so many dead and maimed. I suppose next GWB will be blamed for a flawed "road map" instead of placing the blame on the actual murderers.


Red herring


Yet even in that UN bombing thread, liberal hatred for GWB and America are rampant.


Then whine about it in that thread, not here.

So, what is with the liberal compulsion to slander America? The country we're supposed to believe liberals love every bit as much as the next guy. :rolleyes:

-z

It's called 'criticism'. It's what you're allowed to do in free countries as opposed to... oh, let's say off the top of my head... Iraq under Saddam's regime. You should be thankful 'liberals' are 'slandering' America- it just goes to show you're in a free country.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Mr Manifesto



It's called 'criticism'. It's what you're allowed to do in free countries as opposed to... oh, let's say off the top of my head... Iraq under Saddam's regime. You should be thankful 'liberals' are 'slandering' America- it just goes to show you're in a free country.

"Bloodthirsty" is a perjorative term that has no basis in reality. It is an ad-hom against our soldiers. It is not criticism, it is name-calling.

This free country that you claim to be in support of has been given to you free of charge. It was earned by the kind of men Shemp has chosen to slander. If not for those "bloodthirsty" soldiers you so love to loathe there would be no free country for you to squat in and complain about.

A little respect for the common soldier is all I'm asking for here. Is that too much to ask for?

-z

[Ricomise]

"Bloodthirsty" is a perjorative term that has no basis in reality

I agree it is perjoritive, and we do not know if it applies in this particular case or not. (Not knowing the specifics about this particular soldier or soldiers who were involved.) I suspect it does not, for the reasons already cited by others in this thread. It does seem to me to have been an unfortunate choice of words that paints, with a broad brush, soldiers that are doing a very difficult job under extremely trying circumstances. I could never say what I might do in a similar situation, and hope to never find out.

yet don't even bother to comment on a thread about the terrorist bombing of the UN HQ in Baghdad that killed 20. Not to mention the cowardly bus attack in Israel that left so many dead and maimed. I suppose next GWB will be blamed for a flawed "road map" instead of placing the blame on the actual murderers.

No one has said that those who engage in bombings do not bear responsibility for their actions. However, those soldiers I mentioned above, in my opinion, should not be in the position of having to decide whether to shoot someone or not. Mr. GWB shares the responsibility for placing them there. (And, some might say, bears sole responsibility for it as commander-in-chief.) As such, it is perfectly reasonable to lay part of the blame for incidents such as these at the doorstep of the U.S. administration.

In short, while the rhetoric around these issues has (perhaps with some good reason) reached an emotional fever pitch, and some may make statements that are uncalled for, the issues involved should not ignored in the name of "patriotism" or any other "nationalistic" ideal.

[Lemastre]

Originally posted by Garrette
. . . . Regarding any ineptness in the military's management of the occupation (your term), you will need to be more specific. Are you saying the military aspect of it is inept? Or the political aspect? If the latter, then you need to turn your attention to CPA and the State Department. I have great sympathy and respect for what our military is trying to do in Iraq, especially considering that they aren't trained to do it. The ineptness resides with those in command who apparently failed to foresee what might be needed following the military campaign, i.e. an occupation force and rapid attention to public utilities and other infrastructure. Now I believe the administration wants the UN to take over that effort. Probably a good idea, considering that the troops in place now are trained to fight, not occupy.

[Garrette]

Lemastre:
I have great sympathy and respect for what our military is trying to do in Iraq, especially considering that they aren't trained to do it. The ineptness resides with those in command who apparently failed to foresee what might be needed following the military campaign, i.e. an occupation force and rapid attention to public utilities and other infrastructure. Now I believe the administration wants the UN to take over that effort. Probably a good idea, considering that the troops in place now are trained to fight, not occupy.

I'll quibble a bit, though I agree with what I think is the thrust of your comment.

The decision of whether an occupation force was/is required and the concomitant resources for rebuilding resides at the National Command Authority; the military has input but not the decision. Which isn't to say they would have made better ones if it were theirs, just that it wasn't. (Side note: then Chief of Staff of the Army Shinseki said months before the war that the numbers planned for any war and aftermath were grossly underestimated; he was roundly criticized in the government and the military; some now say he was right while others deny it).

In the NCA's defense, no one predicted the need. Not the UN or the various NGOs here, nor the military. Everyone planned on having to deal with massive numbers of displaced persons and refugees. Turns out there were virtually none at first and relatively few now (relative to the projections, I mean).

And simply because I'm in a defensive mood ;) I'll defend the military a bit more. Many are trained in this kind of thing as a primary function; most are trained some. Do you know who it was who got the electricity first turned back on after the fall of Baghdad? Regular soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division. Who took over quickly and oversaw the rebuilding of the electrical infrastructure? Military engineers. I'll put in a plug for my British colleagues here and say that Major Colin Masson (UK) did a phenomenal job tracking and reporting the status of the power grid until he was moved to a different area a couple months ago.

The oversight and direction of much of the effort falls to Civil Affairs soldiers (most nations' militaries have them now; both the US and the UK use the term Civil Affairs). Almost entirely Reservists which means they have civilian careers and specialties, like investment advisors or airport directors or school administrators or what have you.

Sometimes Civil Affairs soldiers get put in positions perfectly suited for their civilian skills. Sometimes it's a mismatch borne of necessity when other skills like general project management are brought into play.


What has happened and what was not expected is the implosion of the system when Saddam was no longer in power. For instance, the Ministry of Education (second largest of all Ministries before the war--after the Ministry of Defense--now the largest) stopped working completely at the end of the war because there was no longer anyone to dictate even the simplest decisions.

Teachers have not taught here in a long time; instead, they have presented in a dry fashion the stale texts of old books whose only recent changes were to add positive references to Saddam and the Baathist Party. We re-opened schools on May 3rd. Teachers showed up, for the most part, and students showed up, for the most part. But no classes were taught because no one directed the teachers what to teach. They knew they shouldn't teach the history lessons because they were almost completely about the wonderful things the Baathists did (like invent baseball--that's a joke, but not by much). They also knew that even teaching math might anger the Americans because children didn't always add apples and oranges. Sometimes it was "1 Saddam + 1 Saddam = 2 Saddams" (that's not a joke).

In the US, the collapse of the educational system would prompt some parents to organize and teach SOMETHING, even if it was out in a field under a tree without a lesson plan. Some parent would get kids together and say "I don't know what you were taught last week, but right now we're going to study the Civil War."

Didn't happen here. Couldn't happen here, we discovered. Everything has had to be directed. Even telling them to make their own decisions has to be a directive.

I've wandered far afield, sorry.

Just trying to point out that while there are many deficiencies and problems with the military at all levels (and there certainly are) the particular faults you're laying at their doorstep are not, in my opinion, among them.

[peptoabysmal]

Originally posted by Jon_in_london


Shame, poor soldier. Never mind about the journalist's family though. Dirty arabs anyway.

Both the journalist's family and the soldier's family will have to deal with the consequences of these two people opting to put themselves in harm's way. Is dying worse than being mentally screwed the rest of your life. I donno, you tell me.

[Mr Manifesto]

When did the electricity get restored in Baghdad? I'm not being difficult, it's just that the latest news item I can find about Baghdad and electricity is 19 June, and it wasn't restored then.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Garrette
I can't talk about tears at the Pentagon itself right now, but the military deeply and sincerely regrets when a soldier kills an innocent--any innocent. The soldier himself, if he is like other soldiers, is tormenting himself; his chain of command is questioning itself over whether they provided enough guidance and support. The higher leaders are reviewing the Rules of Engagement they promulgate.

They may be figurative, but the tears are there.

Regarding any ineptness in the military's management of the occupation (your term), you will need to be more specific. Are you saying the military aspect of it is inept? Or the political aspect? If the latter, then you need to turn your attention to CPA and the State Department.

According to the story, the journalists told the military they would be there filming. In other cases, raids have been carried out, for example, into which innocent civilians were permitted to wander into the middle of the action.

As has become apparent, the biggest problem with the plan is that an army was sent in that is very good at attacking but not working in a post battle context.

[Garrette]

Mr. Manifesto:

I don't know the exact day electricity was restored nor how you define "restore." I'm not working on it. However, until recently, I have been involved in the briefings at which electricity was one of the main topics. I can recite info from them (I knew MAJ Masson fairly well while he was here and talked with him a bit). A caveat: I am not in any way an engineer of any type, let alone an electrical engineer. I may use terms incorrectly; that's my doing and not the military's:

By April 24th there was already some electrical power (personal observation is my source for that). The problem was/is it's intermittency.

Prior to the war, Baghdad used something like 1500MW, but produced less than 1000MW. The rest came from the southern (Shiite) regions and the northern (Kurdish) regions because Saddam required it.

Now, the electricity in the north and south is allowed to remain, mostly, in the north and south.

In addition, the 200Kv line (might have been 400; can't remember exactly) ringing Baghdad was extensively damaged. Repairs progressed slowly but methodically, but looting continued (people want the metals in the lines).

Not enough substations exist in Baghdad and are being built.

Currently, there is more electricity in Baghdad than there was before the war (something approaching 2000MW, I think), but the demand is greater. Since I've been here, satellite dishes have sprung up like mushrooms on rooftops. They were not allowed before. Now even poor neighborhoods stick up satellite dishes then jury-rig a cable to the nearest junction box. Want to find a junction box in Iraq? Look over your head and follow the cables; they'll converge at some point where the populace has tapped into the commercial grid.

Prior to the war, there were few places that had 24/7 electricity. Those that did, did so because Saddam dictated it and diverted power from elsewhere and/or put in generators.

Now, there is nothing approaching 24/7 electricity for most parts of Baghdad. A few weeks ago, it was something like 3 hours one, 4 hours off, but it was not predictable, which is what made it hard.

There is electricity now. It's now New York City's skyline at night, but there are lights that shine. Even some of the traffic lights (of which there are precious few) work. The phone system has begun working in some areas, though mostly locally.

---

I'm sure some of my terms and numbers are wrong, but the thrust is correct:

-More electricity now than before
-More demand now than before
-More sabotage and looting than before
-Less predictable outages than before

[Garrette]

a_unique_person:
According to the story, the journalists told the military they would be there filming. In other cases, raids have been carried out, for example, into which innocent civilians were permitted to wander into the middle of the action.

As has become apparent, the biggest problem with the plan is that an army was sent in that is very good at attacking but not working in a post battle context.

So you're saying the military aspect is being bungled? There are certainly mistakes and problems, but I'll disagree in general.

About the "post battle context" (I think you mean post war), I'll disagree a lot. When given a free hand, the military is quite good at it. The difficulty has arisen with the use of two parallel chains of authority with no clear guidance on linkages and primacy.

There is the military command which, according to the Laws of Land Warfare (Geneva-Hague et al) has certain legal obligations and therefore ought to have legal authority.

And there is CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) under Bremer which used to be ORHA (Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance) under Garner.

The two have worked together in attempts to present a unified front, but have predictably stepped on each other's toes.

One there are two bosses, nobody is boss.

[rikzilla]

Originally posted by Garrette


So you're saying the military aspect is being bungled? There are certainly mistakes and problems, but I'll disagree in general.

About the "post battle context" (I think you mean post war), I'll disagree a lot. When given a free hand, the military is quite good at it. The difficulty has arisen with the use of two parallel chains of authority with no clear guidance on linkages and primacy.

There is the military command which, according to the Laws of Land Warfare (Geneva-Hague et al) has certain legal obligations and therefore ought to have legal authority.

And there is CPA (Coalition Provisional Authority) under Bremer which used to be ORHA (Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance) under Garner.

The two have worked together in attempts to present a unified front, but have predictably stepped on each other's toes.

One there are two bosses, nobody is boss.

Garrette,

First, since no one has yet said it, allow me to offer you thanks for your service in a difficult situation.

Your first-hand account of life in Baghdad parallels much of what I hear from another friend, Maj Cliff Crawford who is now thankfully back in Kuwait. Cliff was with the 3rd ID when they crossed the Kuwaiti border, and his info has provided to me a much needed first hand perspective that is usually lacking on this forum.

Thanks for filling that gap! I hope you will be able to post often. Take care. :)

-zilla

[Garrette]

Rikzilla:

Thanks are not necessary (though appreciated), but you're welcome. You should thank your friend more. My unit was attached to 3ID but not part of it. Those soldiers have all the respect I can give. They did the hardest, longest fighting and then had to turn almost on a dime from war-fighters into nation-builders. I've had the privilege of working with many of them who started the hard work of making local contacts and turning on electricity and clearing bombs from school yards and helping people find family members and so on and so on. If you haven't done it, you don't realize how difficult both jobs are (war-fighting and nation-building); to turn successfully and quickly from the first to the second is near impossible. 3ID earned their rest and a trip home.

Because of my situation I will have the choice of several patches to wear on my right shoulder (ask MAJ Crawford; he'll know what it means). I'm picking 3ID's.

{Edited for an error in tense}

[subgenius]

A different kind of "bloodthirsty" soldier:

A Marine who told Anoka County authorities that he was shot while trying to help a stranded motorist has admitted that he shot himself, a sheriff's spokesman said Wednesday.
...
Welter was apparently despondent about an impending long-term overseas military assignment, according to investigators. Welter had been in training for about a year to intercept and decode radio messages, and he was to be stationed in Hawaii, said Valerie Welter, his mother. Attempts to contact Welter on Wednesday were unsuccessful.

http://www.startribune.com/stories/462/4052308.html