Missing Photographer in Libya is Presumed Dead

Source: The New York Times

The family of Anton Hammerl, a South African photojournalist who has been missing in Libya since early last month, said late Thursday that they think he died after being shot on April 5 in the desert.

Two journalists who were released by the Libyan government on Wednesday told Mr. Hammerl’s wife that they had been with him when he apparently was shot in the stomach, a family friend, Bronwyn Friedlander, said in a telephone interview. Ms. Friedlander was with Mr. Hammerl’s wife, Penny Sukhraj, and the couple’s children at their home in London.

Ms. Sukhraj heard a first-hand account of her husband’s shooting in a phone call from Clare Morgana Gillis and James Foley, who were among four journalists held by the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi until Wednesday. When Mr. Hammerl was not released with them, his family began to fear the worst.

South African officials called Ms. Sukhraj first on Thursday, then the colleagues called to share their account, Ms. Friedlander said.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/20/world/africa/20journalist.html

do you mean that Gadaffi could have taken his pill ands reacted to the protests in a rational manner, or that after Benghazi had been burned to the ground, there would have been no one left to oppose him?

Just curious.

Someplace, somewhere, WE have to stop pursuing wars. WE CAN'T AFFORD WARS> WE are borrowing trillions for wars.

It's the French and the Italians (and the British to an extent) playing Eurocop due to the fact that all hell's broken loose on Europe's southern border. The US just provided the rebels (tenative) recognition and some seaborne and airborne assistance.

I should have known that I came off as too transparent.

From here in Canada, this seems to be more a case of the Europeans stomping out a brushfire on their back-40 with the US late to the party than the full-on, trumpeted clusterfark that was Iraq.

Also, I do not believe that you answered my question.

but Obama cannot?

Just curious.

Because Bush and his admin were amoral spluges of the highest order and, at that time, Gadaffi wasn't facing a fullblown rebellion that would provide any of the neocon hawks with an excuse to take out an old foe.

Plus, the French and the (especially) Italians would have been pissed if we tried to infringe upon their North African petroleum supplies.

it's none of our business intervening in a civil war and spending hundreds of millions just because Hillary gets off on Israel. Particularly when the side we're supporting is stuffed with Islamic fundamentalists.

By the way, there's a nice lesson here for countries with nuclear weapons - never give them up, or you're a sitting duck for a Western attack.

Interesting that Italy is so much in the forefront of this, after trashing Libya for decades as part of its colonial empire. Italy did far more damage to Libyans than Qaddafi has ever thought of.

I am not following the connection you are making there.

Just like who do you think drove starting the Iraq war? Israel's friends in the US government. Hillary is more right than the Likud.

Where did you hear that?