Spain orders arrest of US troops

[solypsist]

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/europe/10/19/spain.us.soldiers/index.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,172712,00.html

"MADRID, Spain — A judge has issued an international arrest warrant for three U.S. soldiers whose tank fired on a Baghdad hotel during the Iraq war, killing a Spanish journalist and one other, a court official said Wednesday.

Judge Santiago Pedraz issued the warrant for Sgt. Shawn Gibson, Capt. Philip Wolford and Lt. Col. Philip de Camp, all from the U.S. 3rd Infantry

Jose Couso, who worked for the Spanish television network Telecinco (search), died April 8, 2003, after a U.S. army tank crew fired a shell on Hotel Palestine (search) in Baghdad where several journalists were staying to cover the war.

Reuters cameraman Taras Portsyuk, a Ukrainian, also was killed.

The Spanish judge said he issued the arrest order because of a lack of judicial cooperation from the United States regarding the case.

U.S. officials insist the soldiers believed they were being shot at when they opened fire."


let's try this again.

with thanks to ShadeWolf for starting the original thread.

[PanzerJaeger]

las idiotas!

Are they trying to make themselves look weak and stupid, or is this all a joke?

[Papewaio]

If you see a lens in a building is it a laser targeter, scope or camera?

You have 0.5 seconds to make the decision or your crew is dead... feeling lucky punk?

[Crazed Rabbit]

And this is why we don't want anything to do with the International Crime Tribunal/whatever its called.

Crazed Rabbit

[Sjakihata]

las idiotas!

Are they trying to make themselves look weak and stupid, or is this all a joke?


you're talking about the soldiers surely?

And pape, to make that call is what they're trained for, so I dont pitty them, they wanted - and if they fail their job and KILL INNOCENT journalists heads are gonna roll, theirs...

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

surely the Spanish courts don't have jurisdiction in Mesopotamia?

[PanzerJaeger]

Originally Posted by PanzerJager
las idiotas!

Are they trying to make themselves look weak and stupid, or is this all a joke?



you're talking about the soldiers surely?

Is that what you really think I was saying or are you just being a smart___?

[BDC]

You blow up a hotel full of foreign journalists, you are going to get consequences.

[Strike For The South]

were america we are above the law:balloon2:

[Azi Tohak]

You blow up a hotel full of foreign journalists, you are going to get consequences.

Isn't being in the firing line your own fault? Wow, journalists died. I'm sure you can find more under a rock somewhere. Heck, I think I just stepped on one on my way into my house!

I just think this is funny myself. As if you couldn't tell.

And Taffy, I think it is an international arrest warrant. Meaning it can go beyond the pond. Assuming anyone here cares.

Azi

[Xiahou]

You blow up a hotel full of foreign journalists, you are going to get consequences.
You know, many innocents die in war... just being a reporter doesn't confer any special rights/privileges/protections when it comes to that.

And good luck to that judge on enforcing that warrant. ~;)



And this is why we don't want anything to do with the International Crime Tribunal/whatever its called.
Yes, that's a perfect example, imo.

[Redleg]

From the previous thread -

Now this is politics at its worse.

So if the tank fired at the window which the servicemember believed that fire came from. Trying to hold the tank crew responsible for the death of a civilian in a war zone is one thing. but Why is the Battalion Commander and the Company commander being charged for the actions of the tank crew?

Politics and the desire to be seen as doing something in the eyes of the anti-United States crowd that is running around in Spain. I wonder if the Judge is going to run for public office?

Additional comments.

Now before someone says I am speaking out of my rear-end - as another member already pointed out. Spain does not have jurisdiction in Iraq The event happened in Iraq concerning a Tank Crew that fired at a hotel that contained journalists. The journalists were in the middle of the war zone. This particular charge is nothing but a political stunt on its face. When does Spain have jurisdiction of United States servicemen who might or might not have committed a crime against a spanish citizen in a nation away from the courts jurisdiction. Spainish courts only have jurisdiction in Spain for actions committed in Spain that violate Spanish Law. Under the European Union Charter, Spanish Courts might have jurisdiction over crimes committed by European Union members against Spanish citizens within the European Union. However this alledge crime was committed by soldiers of a nation not in the European Union in a hostile war zone that was known to the Spanish Citizen to be a war zone that was not on Spanish soil.

If Spain was interested in pursueing justice verus political games the prosecution would of filed the motions in the Iraqi Courts of the Interm government or in the International Court. (Which would of been ignored by the United States, but would of given the shown that the motives of the Spanish Judge was not politics but Justice.)

Futhermore by attempting to charge and have arrested individuals who could not have been in the tank at the time of the incident also smacks of politics - since the Judge could not have determined where the individuals were when and what their actions were when the actual tank round was fired.

Especially since I doubt very seriousily that the United States Army turned over any information to Spain concerning the investigation that it did not want to give the Spanish Government.

Yes indeed Politics at its worse. And again I suspect the Spanish Judge is looking at running for a political office.

[SwordsMaster]

Personally I can´t really blame the tank crew, I don´t believe they shot the journalists on purpose "Hey, Joe, look, the photographer of that magazine is aiming a camera at us again". "Oh, really? He´s been following us around all day, Pete. Blast him."

But I think it is amusing that the spaniards actually prosecuted the case and didn´t back down.

They do have apoint though. It was a known fact that a few journalists were staying in that hotel and probably other measures should have been taken. Blasting and then asking questions is a bit too wild west for the XXI century.



Under the European Union Charter, Spanish Courts might have jurisdiction over crimes committed by European Union members against Spanish citizens within the European Union. However this alledge crime was committed by soldiers of a nation not in the European Union in a hostile war zone that was known to the Spanish Citizen to be a war zone that was not on Spanish soil.


Ah, redleg, don´t even go there. What jusrisdiction do the US have in Iraq? and they are there, staging elections, prosecuting their president and all the rest of it, so I can´t accept your point.

I´m kinda waiting to see what the Pentagon answer is. This could just degenerate into a flame war....

I do not like the current spanish president, BTW. He thinks he is smart when he isn´t.

[Sjakihata]

Naturally they didnt do it on purpose - but the american attitude is "oh, they're soldiers, it's not their fault" just creates a reckless attitude amongst us soldiers, no matter how bizzare or stupid they behave (=how many innocent they kill/torture) they face NO consequences... WTF is that for bullshit??

[makkyo]

Not only that Redleg, but I didn't Spain decide to get completely out of the war after their last election? Why are they trying to involve themselves by pulling this stunt? I supose they withdrew everything except criticism. ~;)

[SwordsMaster]

Not only that Redleg, but I didn't Spain decide to get completely out of the war after their last election? Why are they trying to involve themselves by pulling this stunt? I supose they withdrew everything except criticism. ~;)


The fact that they retreated their soldiers doesn´t mean they retreated the news coverage... And it was announced on national tv that the case would be looked into right after it happened, so this is just a 2 years long court case.... Or maybe, they are right and the Pentagon just refused to collaborate...

[Redleg]

Ah, redleg, don´t even go there. What jusrisdiction do the US have in Iraq? and they are there, staging elections, prosecuting their president and all the rest of it, so I can´t accept your point.

Actually you might want to check out the Hague Conventions of 1907 - it provides the jurisdiction as the occuping power. So yes we can go there because the jurisdiction portion is valid on its face by international treaty that has been used in several conflicts. You can argue about the reasons for war - but on its face the occuping power has jurisdiction.

Since the United States Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq - our jurisdiction also applies to the occupation of Iraq.

Now if your wanting to argue that the conflict was not sanctioned by the United Nations - that is an arguement in itself. But the Hague Conventions of 1907 grants the occupying power legal jurisdiction over the nation that has had its government removed.


I´m kinda waiting to see what the Pentagon answer is. This could just degenerate into a flame war....


The pentagon will most likely ignore it - and let the State Department handle it.



I do not like the current spanish president, BTW. He thinks he is smart when he isn´t.

Again Politics at its worse.

[Redleg]

Naturally they didnt do it on purpose - but the american attitude is "oh, they're soldiers, it's not their fault" just creates a reckless attitude amongst us soldiers, no matter how bizzare or stupid they behave (=how many innocent they kill/torture) they face NO consequences... WTF is that for bullshit??

The problem is that some want soldiers held accountable for their actions outside of the Military Justice system. Until one shows evidence that the Military Justice system is corrupt and unable to handle such cases - the civilian authority can not just assume jurisdiction for a crime committed in uniform while performing a military mission.

[Redleg]

The fact that they retreated their soldiers doesn´t mean they retreated the news coverage... And it was announced on national tv that the case would be looked into right after it happened, so this is just a 2 years long court case.... Or maybe, they are right and the Pentagon just refused to collaborate...

or the Spanish Judge decided that he would not accept the answer provided by the United States to them.

[Sjakihata]

does the hague convention say anything about juristiction if the occupying power is the violating every established world community treaty?

At any rate, these treaties and convetions are good for nothing, except for occupying powers to hide behind.. instead of admitting what they are doing...namely invading by force to secure valuable assests

[SwordsMaster]

Actually you might want to check out the Hague Conventions of 1907 - it provides the jurisdiction as the occuping power. So yes we can go there because the jurisdiction portion is valid on its face by international treaty that has been used in several conflicts. You can argue about the reasons for war - but on its face the occuping power has jurisdiction.

Since the United States Congress authorized the use of force against Iraq - our jurisdiction also applies to the occupation of Iraq.

Now if your wanting to argue that the conflict was not sanctioned by the United Nations - that is an arguement in itself. But the Hague Conventions of 1907 grants the occupying power legal jurisdiction over the nation that has had its government removed.


You are correct. I see your point. :bow:

But then I could say that the spanish government IS the authority to be considered whenever the wellbeing of its citizens is in question. Which is the case. Who else would the photographer´s family go to?

So the government allowed the case to be prosecuted. Therefore it is legitimate as well... As I said: wait and see.



The pentagon will most likely ignore it - and let the State Department handle it.


Does your state department have jurisdiction over the army? I think the case will just get lost in some secretarial office and everyone will forget about it...until the next election.



or the Spanish Judge decided that he would not accept the answer provided by the United States to them.


Because the answer probably meant doing nothing...

[yesdachi]

Redleg - I completely appreciate your input on matters like this, thanks.:bow:

[Alexander the Pretty Good]

does the hague convention say anything about juristiction if the occupying power is the violating every established world community treaty?

At any rate, these treaties and convetions are good for nothing, except for occupying powers to hide behind.. instead of admitting what they are doing...namely invading by force to secure valuable assests

What treaties established by the "world community" is the US breaking in an accidental incident?

And this - "namely invading by force to secure valuable assests" - is such a nice bit of something or other. :dizzy2:

[Xiahou]

does the hague convention say anything about juristiction if the occupying power is the violating every established world community treaty?
If you'd list these treaties, we'd be happy to comment on them.

[Redleg]

does the hague convention say anything about juristiction if the occupying power is the violating every established world community treaty?

The Hague Convention only covers what is to happen once the conflict starts to the time period in which the conflict is settled between the two nations.



At any rate, these treaties and convetions are good for nothing, except for occupying powers to hide behind.. instead of admitting what they are doing...namely invading by force to secure valuable assests

So is the United Nations - do you really want to pursue that course of logical and reason?

[Erebus1101]

Making friends again ... I guess.
First withdrawing the troops, and now trying to investigate into something that doesn't concern us. Well one certainly could look at it that way but I have a different opinion.

If you see a lens in a building is it a laser targeter, scope or camera?

You have 0.5 seconds to make the decision or your crew is dead... feeling lucky punk?

So if the tank fired at the window which the servicemember believed that fire came from. Trying to hold the tank crew responsible for the death of a civilian in a war zone is one thing. but Why is the Battalion Commander and the Company commander being charged for the actions of the tank crew?
Things went like this:
Sergant Thomas Gibson certainly spoted first someone with lenses but he didn't make the decision in 0.5 secs, he waited 10 minutes for others to take the decision for him, namely capitan Wolford and coronel Philip de Camp. The later was the one who ultimately gave the order to shot.
So it says in today's "El Pais" (spanish newspapers) citing Los Angeles Times, and Le Nouvel Observateur interviews with those soldiers.

They defend themselves by saying they were being attacked but all witnesess (the reporters in Hotel Palestina) said nothing was going on, but suddenly the tank opened fire. I'am inclined to believe them as it was pretty well documented (they were filming all the day).

We must also take into consideration that the US military was fully informed that the in Hotel Palestina were journalists (and it was the very same pentagon who told all foreing press to go there so that they would be safe there).

Well it certainly doesn't make the US military look good, because as we all know deliberately killing journalists or civilians is a "delict against the International Community" (literally translated from spanish), and as far as I know Spanish Judges can prosecute anyone who comitted a crime against a national (...remembers pinochet...), of course as long as we have cooperation from the other country. Otherwise we can only fill charges and conduct a more or less complete investigation (and make us feel good).

So why did the judge issued the arrest warrant? the two previous attemps to get the US to collaborate didnt work so now they might get the message.


Yes indeed Politics at its worse. And again I suspect the Spanish Judge is looking at running for a political office.
I suspect he is just trying to do his job. If he wants a political office I think is is out of his mind, Do you think an spaniard would give up a 5000€ monthly (adjusted to the inflation) and a pension of the same amount free of taxes(also adjusted to the inflation) for an elusive political office?

[Redleg]

You are correct. I see your point. :bow:

And I understand the point about the conflict in general



But then I could say that the spanish government IS the authority to be considered whenever the wellbeing of its citizens is in question. Which is the case. Who else would the photographer´s family go to?


However it only has the legal jursidiction on the matters that happen in its nation - it can not determine its jursidiction on its one - that is a matter between nations. In this case the Judge has no legal jursidiction on the matter unless the citizens of Spain are attempting a civil suit for wrongful death. However they are seem to be pursueing a legal criminal charge which in beyond the Spanish Courts Jurisdiction.



So the government allowed the case to be prosecuted. Therefore it is legitimate as well... As I said: wait and see.


Actually it didnt according to the CNN article - the Judge acted on his own and his judgement is under review by the National Courts of Spain. I refer to the following quote from the CNN article.


And the National Court prosecutor's office said later Wednesday it would appeal the arrest warrant on the ground the magistrate has no jurisdiction in the case, Spanish news reports said.

It would seem to me that a Spanish Prosecutor in the National Court understand the law a little better then the magistrate now doesn't



Does your state department have jurisdiction over the army? I think the case will just get lost in some secretarial office and everyone will forget about it...until the next election.


THe military works for the Department of Defense which answers to the President. THe State Department handles many of the mistakes that the military makes by attempting to smooth the relationship with other nations. Or at least that is my understanding.




Because the answer probably meant doing nothing...

Hince the Political motivites of the Judge must be questioned.

[Xiahou]

(and it was the very same pentagon who told all foreing press to go there so that they would be safe there).Id like to see where you're getting that from. The hotel was under Baathist control for the majority of the battle as I understand it. So, I can't understand why the Pentagon would direct reporters there.

From Feb27 2003:
• WARNING REPORTERS: The Pentagon Thursday warned major news organizations that their reporters based in Baghdad are in far more danger than in 1991, because the U.S. bombing of Iraq, if it comes, would be far more devastating. In a meeting at the Pentagon, Washington bureau chiefs were told the U.S. military could not guarantee the safety of journalists who decided to remain in the Iraqi capital in the event of war, and also could not guarantee another warning before any military action begins.link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/meast/02/27/iraq.tracker.update/)

[GoreBag]

Eh. Catch 'em if you can.

[Erebus1101]

Id like to see where you're getting that from. The hotel was under Baathist control for the majority of the battle as I understand it. So, I can't understand why the Pentagon would direct reporters there.

Local news and newspapers.
The events took place in april 2003, and by that time that area of baghdad was under control of the US.

[Redleg]

Making friends again ... I guess.
First withdrawing the troops, and now trying to investigate into something that doesn't concern us. Well one certainly could look at it that way but I have a different opinion.

All is well



Things went like this:
Sergant Thomas Gibson certainly spoted first someone with lenses but he didn't make the decision in 0.5 secs, he waited 10 minutes for others to take the decision for him, namely capitan Wolford and coronel Philip de Camp. The later was the one who ultimately gave the order to shot.
So it says in today's "El Pais" (spanish newspapers) citing Los Angeles Times, and Le Nouvel Observateur interviews with those soldiers.

Lets see the Sergeant still informed the chain that he believed that what he reported was a legimate target and that he believed he was being fired upon from that direction. The only decision left to the Captain and the LTC was to determine if the target was in a restricted fire area or in an other zone that was known to them to have an area determined by the miltary not to be shot into for any reason. And even with those restrictions the United States Army does not remove the condition of acting in self-defense. Again the Military investigated and concluded that the actions of the Sergeant and the Officers followed the established Rules of Engagement.



They defend themselves by saying they were being attacked but all witnesess (the reporters in Hotel Palestina) said nothing was going on, but suddenly the tank opened fire. I'am inclined to believe them as it was pretty well documented (they were filming all the day).


And I am inclined to believe that the prespective of the soldiers on the ground was different then what the reporters prespective is.



We must also take into consideration that the US military was fully informed that the in Hotel Palestina were journalists (and it was the very same pentagon who told all foreing press to go there so that they would be safe there).

Yep that is a valid point.



Well it certainly doesn't make the US military look good, because as we all know deliberately killing journalists or civilians is a "delict against the International Community" (literally translated from spanish), and as far as I know Spanish Judges can prosecute anyone who comitted a crime against a national (...remembers pinochet...), of course as long as we have cooperation from the other country. Otherwise we can only fill charges and conduct a more or less complete investigation (and make us feel good).

And no one can provide a legimate case that the Sergeant made a delibert attack on journalists to kill said journalists - hince the charges filed by a Spanish Judge is a political stunt because he did not like the level of cooperation or what he was informed of by the United States.


I also learned something today - and leads me to conclude again that its more of a political stunt then anything else. From an international law review


Popular actions may be brought by any Spanish citizen, regardless of [End Page 934] injury or other standing, in the public's interest. 14 One scholar notes that the popular action has its roots in the concept of common concern for protection of the legal order rather than the traditionally more narrow judicial concern, and narrower rules of standing, focusing on the injured party. 15 They permit the party filing to continue to pursue the matter as a private prosecutor, whatever may be the public prosecutor's position during the investigative stage. The Spanish public prosecutor's office may, at its discretion, choose to participate in supporting a popular action. If the public prosecutor opposes the action, of course, the chances of successful completion of an investigation are significantly diminished. The prosecutor plays a much greater role in the trial of the case.
The Spanish Board of Attorneys, which oversees operations of the Attorney General's office and makes policy decisions regarding the position of public prosecutors in cases filed as popular actions, initially opposed the filing of the Argentine case but ultimately cleared the way for the popular action by voting to "neither oppose nor support the prosecution." 16 As for the Chilean case, a 1958 Spanish-Chilean convention on dual citizenship permits any Chilean, whether a resident of Spain or not, to file suit in Spanish court with the same rights as any Spanish citizen. 17 In that case, the public prosecutors initially took a position which explicitly approved the litigation. 18 It was only quite recently, when the Pinochet arrest threatened [End Page 935] amicable relations between Spain and its Latin American colleagues, that the public prosecutors took an active position against the litigation. 19


http://www.umass.edu/legal/Benavides/Fall2004/397U/Electronic%20Reserve%20Legal%20397U/13%20Wilson%20Prosecuting%20Pinochet.doc


So if I don't like the information given to me and I can gain popular support for my action - I can pursue a criminal charge. Again this smacks of politic running amok. Edit: A civil case I could understand but criminal prosecution based upon popularity doesn't sound like justice to me.



So why did the judge issued the arrest warrant? the two previous attemps to get the US to collaborate didnt work so now they might get the message.


Again or is it that the Spanish Judge did not want to accept the answers that he was given.



I suspect he is just trying to do his job. If he wants a political office I think is is out of his mind, Do you think an spaniard would give up a 5000€ monthly (adjusted to the inflation) and a pension of the same amount free of taxes(also adjusted to the inflation) for an elusive political office?

One really never knows

[Kaiser of Arabia]

you're talking about the soldiers surely?

And pape, to make that call is what they're trained for, so I dont pitty them, they wanted - and if they fail their job and KILL INNOCENT journalists heads are gonna roll, theirs...
The journalist shouldn't have been in an enemy occupied building. By entering a war zone they know they're taking a risk. It's their desicision.


I think Spain wants to start somthing. I think, embargos, blockades, sanctions, etc. Starve them out

[Ronin]

I think Spain wants to start somthing. I think, embargos, blockades, sanctions, etc. Starve them out


hahahahah.....that´s funny man.......I know you´re kidding....but some of your fellow citizens might actually believe such a thing would actually be possible....now that´s the real riot...

yeah...Spain´s trying to start something...it´s trying to reming you that US troops fired upon a building that was signalled in military maps as being filled with reporters and civilians....someone´s ass needs to be in a sling for that....or don´t wonder why the american government loses credibility every time some incident like this goes down.

if the situation was the other way around and it was a spanish soldiers and an american reporter our american conservative friends would be here yelling bloody murder....hell...some of the more hot tempered ones would be talking about declaring war....I don´t have a dictionary here handy.....but that kinda reminds me of the definition of hipocrasy.

[Strike For The South]

The journalist was in a building with insurgents he knew the risk . So Spain can stop trying to play the great defender of human rights and go back to doing what they do best being hypocritical backstabbing allies~:cheers:

[Redleg]

if the situation was the other way around and it was a spanish soldiers and an american reporter our american conservative friends would be here yelling bloody murder....hell...some of the more hot tempered ones would be talking about declaring war....I don´t have a dictionary here handy.....but that kinda reminds me of the definition of hipocrasy.

Not all of us would be screaming bloody murder - some of us realize that when you are in a war zone peole get killed that were not suppose to. As long as the investigation was done by the apporiate military authorities one must accept the investigation as honestly done unless one can prove that corruption was rampent in the investigation.

Can the Spanish authority who issued the warrant prove that the investigation was corrupted just because he did not like the conclusion of the investigators?

[SwordsMaster]

QUOTE=Kaiser of Arabia]The journalist shouldn't have been in an enemy occupied building. By entering a war zone they know they're taking a risk. It's their desicision.


I think Spain wants to start somthing. I think, embargos, blockades, sanctions, etc. Starve them out[/QUOTE]


Good one Kaiser, but isn´t going to happen. Of all countries, Spain is one that can definitely feed itself. Hell they even provided food and resources for the germans in WWII...

Besides the americans need the spanish naval bases a lot more than they want to starve them out.



So if I don't like the information given to me and I can gain popular support for my action - I can pursue a criminal charge. Again this smacks of politic running amok. Edit: A civil case I could understand but criminal prosecution based upon popularity doesn't sound like justice to me.


Well, ultimately is what democracy is based on, isnt it? It is one of the reasons I consider democracy a weak political system.


However it only has the legal jursidiction on the matters that happen in its nation

Not necessarily. If a spanish citizen is accused of a crime abroad, it is the spanish consulate that will provide a lawyer because the state is responsible for their subjects. As in it must do everything possible so they are treated fairly.


THe military works for the Department of Defense which answers to the President. THe State Department handles many of the mistakes that the military makes by attempting to smooth the relationship with other nations. Or at least that is my understanding.



I reckon there are probably too many offices envolved for the case to actually get somewhere...


Again or is it that the Spanish Judge did not want to accept the answers that he was given.

Maybe, but it is his right to ask for further investigation which is what he did.


Anyway, I´m off to bed. I´ll keep brain-challenging you in the morning.~:cheers:

[SwordsMaster]

The journalist was in a building with insurgents he knew the risk . So Spain can stop trying to play the great defender of human rights and go back to doing what they do best being hypocritical backstabbing allies~:cheers:


See, that is an ugly accusation and you have no grounds whatsoever to make it. The government in Spain changed as a result of the election, and the new government decided it was not in its best interest to keep troops in the Middle East just as the previous government decided it was. That doesn´t make them any more or less backstabbing than any other government in the planet.

And, BTW, the journalist was in a hotel. Not an insurgent bunker.

[Redleg]

The journalist was in a building with insurgents he knew the risk . So Spain can stop trying to play the great defender of human rights and go back to doing what they do best being hypocritical backstabbing allies~:cheers:


Spain has not backstabbed us in any way - they have been open about their withdraw based upon the vote of the people of that nation. That smacks of hyperbole more then anything else.

I don't like the court ruling - but I would not call it backstabbing. I would call it a political motivated action by a member of the Spanish Judicary - but not the Spanish People or the Nation itself. This type of hyperbole does not fit the course of the discussion. Neither does Kaiser's comments. Tsk Tsk - and gives people grounds to make such comments like Ronin comment of


conservative friends would be here yelling bloody murder

Oh well reason often flys out the window when misplaced passion and hyperbole enter into the discussion.

[Adrian II]

I suspect he is just trying to do his job.Good points, Erebus1101. The actual incident is not a case of 'split-second decisions' and other improvised notions that are often thrown in to defend U.S. soldiers without looking at the facts. The case should be examined more closely, I think, since firing at a hotel full of non-combatants is just not cricket and the U.S. have a record of targeting foreign and critical media. And Spanish judges can indeed prosecute whomever they see fit, whether other countries like it or not.

[Strike For The South]

I made that comment becuase of what Ronin said about US hypocricsy. The man was in a military zone he knew what would happen. if Spain wants something done They can ask the American milatary. This isnt there jurisdiction

[Devastatin Dave]

All I have to say to Spain is try to come and get them.~D

[Papewaio]

Good points, Erebus1101. The actual incident is not a case of 'split-second decisions' and other improvised notions that are often thrown in to defend U.S. soldiers without looking at the facts. The case should be examined more closely, I think, since firing at a hotel full of non-combatants is just not cricket and the U.S. have a record of targeting foreign and critical media. And Spanish judges can indeed prosecute whomever they see fit, whether other countries like it or not.

Just read the account that it took ten minutes to get fire authourisation.

So they followed the rules. Made a mistake in a war zone.

The journalists were there for what reason? To report on a war zone, to sell more adverts, to be ghoulish and make money out of other peoples suffering, to be a champion of the people by showing the oppression, to get an adrenal rush, because their editor told them and they have 3 kids, a dog and a bank manager to pay for, because they get off on having a byline, because they truly think they could make a positive difference. Doesn't matter what the reason was, it was their choice to be in a war zone unlike the military and the civilians of the country.

Did the tank crew delibrately target journalists or did they target what they believed was an enemy observation post?

[Redleg]

Good points, Erebus1101. The actual incident is not a case of 'split-second decisions' and other improvised notions that are often thrown in to defend U.S. soldiers without looking at the facts. The case should be examined more closely, I think, since firing at a hotel full of non-combatants is just not cricket and the U.S. have a record of targeting foreign and critical media. And Spanish judges can indeed prosecute whomever they see fit, whether other countries like it or not.


It seems your jumping to the some conclusions without looking into the facts - just like your attempting to conclude of others. And old adage fits here very well.


Just because I am now in a Nitpicking mood - Spain can attempt to prosecute and it seems from research that this particular judge is acting under the Spanish Constitution but not under the aspice of national authority but is pursueing a legal case under the popular jurist action under a private prosecution. Or in your haste to find fault - did you overlook that little bit of information?

Also the Spanish do not prosecute in absent. So again they can not prosecute whether a country likes it or not - they must have willing particaption by the other nation in the handing over of one of their citizens to Spain for trail. The case for this is linked in an earlier comment - Spain would of been out of luck if Britian had decided not to allow the extradiction now would they?

However don't let the facts get in the way of the desire to have what amounts to a political judicial action. Edit: I would call it something else - but it hasn't gotten to that level of malfesiance yet.

[Redleg]

Did the tank crew delibrately target journalists or did they target what they believed was an enemy observation post?

Well it seems if you want to follow the logic of Adrian and a few others they did it own purpose to delibrately target the journalists.

The military investigation turned up a different conclusion.

My military experience indicts that something went wrong in the Restricted Fire Area and No Fire Area accountablity process and a decision to fire upon what the Sergeant believed to be an enemy postion was given. One might be able to conclude that the Sergeant was incorrect about his observation, but one must place themselves in the combat situation to fully understand the situation and circumstances behind the Sergeants decision. To conflicting accounts have been given - one by journalists who were in the building - having not been shot at. One by the soldiers on the ground who had been shot at - and might have been shot at during this time period from a direction not noticed by the Journalists. It all depends on what you want to believe.

However you pointed out correctly the problem with this as a criminal case.


The journalists were there for what reason? To report on a war zone, to sell more adverts, to be ghoulish and make money out of other peoples suffering, to be a champion of the people by showing the oppression, to get an adrenal rush, because their editor told them and they have 3 kids, a dog and a bank manager to pay for, because they get off on having a byline, because they truly think they could make a positive difference. Doesn't matter what the reason was, it was their choice to be in a war zone unlike the military and the civilians of the country.

Criminal prosecution of the death of the journalists is unwarranted - wrong death proceedings in a civil case however might be warranted.

[Adrian II]

It seems your jumping to the some conclusions without looking into the facts (..)You already had to withdraw your remarks about the inclusion of regimental commander De Camp in the arrest warrants. It turns out DeCamp actually gave the order to fire.

As for your remarks about prosecution in Spain: Under Spanish law any crime against a Spaniard abroad can be prosecuted in Spain if it is not prosecuted in the country where it was committed. It is up to the Spaniards to decide how they will proceed.

[Papewaio]

I can understand being able to charge your own citizens for crimes committed overseas (Australia does that). But I cannot see how a country can have authority over another countries citizens that commit crimes overseas without the other country giving it to them. Isn't that a direct attack on another countries self rule?

It creates a stupid set of rules. Where you can do something that is legitmate in your country but if a Spaniard is involved you might be commiting a crime that you have no idea about.

[Redleg]

You already had to withdraw your remarks about the inclusion of regimental commander De Camp in the arrest warrants. It turns out DeCamp actually gave the order to fire.

I actually doubt that DeCamp gave the order to fire - it most likely was the S3 in the TOC that looked at the map and gave the order in the Col's name.
That is normally how it works - and they normally get this information from the Fire Support Officer that sits in the Toc who is suppose to plot all No Fire Areas and Restricted Fire Areas on the battlemap.

The LTC is still overall responsible for the call - but when your wanting to bandy words about like actual - it nickpicking time again to better show that you really don't know now do you. But that your willing to jump to conclusion based upon baised views - just like the rest of us.

Nor did I withdraw the comment try again reading what is written. Here I will help you once again.

Initial statement

Why is the Battalion Commander and the Company commander being charged for the actions of the tank crew?

Follow up statement

The only decision left to the Captain and the LTC was to determine if the target was in a restricted fire area or in an other zone that was known to them to have an area determined by the miltary not to be shot into for any reason. And even with those restrictions the United States Army does not remove the condition of acting in self-defense. Again the Military investigated and concluded that the actions of the Sergeant and the Officers followed the established Rules of Engagement.

Where does it state that I withdrew my comment about the Battalion Commander? Again the Commander acted upon information given to him by his subordinates on the ground - one must prove for it to be an unlawful order by the commander that he had knowledge that the report by the subordinate was in error and and falsified. Again what ground do the Spanish authorities have to charge the commander for actions taken by the Sergeant on the ground in a combat zone? Where is the malfesiance shown on the part of the Company Commander or the Battalion Commander. For the charge to have creditablity - culibility must be established.

The article states that the reason for the charge is because


It said the United States provided "no judicial cooperation" in trying to resolve the death of the cameraman.

Or in otherwords the judge did not like the answer given to him and has decided to pursue it a different way. No grounds to charge the Captain and the LTC other then they were the superior officers to the NCO.

Here is what another investigation showed - now I did not edit the earlier comment about the TOC because it should stay to make a point to you,



A Committee to Protect Journalists (CPJ) investigation into the incident—based on interviews with about a dozen reporters who were at the scene, including two embedded journalists who monitored the military radio traffic before and after the shelling occurred—suggests that attack on the journalists, while not deliberate, was avoidable. CPJ has learned that Pentagon officials, as well as commanders on the ground in Baghdad, knew that the Palestine Hotel was full of international journalists and were intent on not hitting it.

However, these senior officers apparently failed to convey their concern to the tank commander who fired on the hotel.

What it doesn't say is at what level were the senior officers.

Futher down in the article it states this


In some desperation, Perkins explained that U.S. forces were under fire from Iraqis in buildings on the east side of the Tigris, and that they were considering calling in an air strike. Perkins was aware that the Palestine Hotel was on the east side of the river in the general vicinity of where the fire was coming from. He was also aware that the hotel was full of Western journalists. Tomlinson said he believed that all the commanders, including Lt. Col. Philip DeCamp and even Captain Wolford, would have known that information since the 2nd Brigade had captured the Al-Rashid Hotel the previous day, and most people knew that the journalists there had moved to the Palestine Hotel. Perkins had a general location—probably within a few hundred meters, according to Tomlinson—and he wanted Tomlinson's help in physically identifying the building so that it would not be hit. (He also noted that the satellite maps used by the military were about 10 years old.)

Tomlinson frantically called The AP office in Doha, Qatar, in an effort to get a description of the hotel and to reach people staying at the Palestine. His plan was to relay a message to the journalists inside and ask them to hang bed sheets out the window to make the building more easily identifiable to U.S. forces.

At about the time that Tomlinson was trying to locate the Palestine Hotel, in the late morning, one of the tank officers on the Al-Jumhuriya Bridge who was looking for the spotter radioed that he had located a person with binoculars in a building on the east side of the river. Exactly how much time lapsed between the tank officer identifying this target and the actual firing of the tank shell is not clear from Tomlinson's monitoring of the radio traffic.

In an interview with the French weekly Le Nouvel Observateur, Captain Wolford hinted that he gave an immediate order to fire. However, in an interview with Belgium's RTBF television news that aired in May, Shawn Gibson, the tank's sergeant, said that after he spotted someone talking and pointing with binoculars, he reported it to his commanders but did not receive an order to fire for about 10 minutes. Jules Crittenden, who was located on the west side of the river with U.S. forces at that point, also recalls troops at the very least discussing the target. "I was aware that they had spotted someone with binoculars and they were getting ready to fire," Crittenden said. "This was being discussed on the radio."

According to Tomlinson, the round that was fired was a heat round, an incendiary shell that is intended to kill people and not destroy buildings. If the tank had fired an armor-piercing round, the damage to the building would have been much more severe.

The immediate reaction from U.S. commanders to the attack on the Palestine Hotel was anger and consternation. Lt. Col. Philip DeCamp, Captain Wolford's commanding officer, began screaming over the radio, "Who just shot the Palestinian [sic] Hotel?" according to Tomlinson. Tomlinson listened as DeCamp confronted Wolford. "‘Did you just f***ing shoot the Palestinian [sic] Hotel?'" he demanded of Wolford.

Tomlinson said that at first, Wolford was not sure that what he had hit was in fact the hotel. Tomlinson continues:

"[After a delay of some minutes] Wolford says, ‘Yes, yes. We had an observer up there. And DeCamp says, ‘You're not supposed to fire on the hotel.' And then there is a brief discussion about what he did see and why did he fire because this was very serious. They weren't supposed to shoot at the Palestine Hotel."

Afterward, DeCamp ordered Wolford to cease firing and drove his tank to meet Wolford, apparently to have a private discussion.

After hearing the exchange, Tomlinson immediately went to Colonel Perkins, DeCamp's commanding officer, to tell him that his effort to locate the Palestine Hotel to prevent it from being hit by an air strike was too late.

"I know, I know," Perkins told Tomlinson. "I have just given the order that under no circumstances is anyone to shoot at the Palestine Hotel, even if they are taking fire, even if there is an artillery piece on top of the roof. No one is allowed to shoot at the Palestine Hotel again."


http://www.cpj.org/Briefings/2003/palestine_hotel/palestine_hotel.html

Now should the LTC be held responsible when its not clear even to the reporters on the ground that he gave the order? It seems from their testimony that he was unaware of the shot being fired until after the fact.

The only officer that might be responsible could be the Captian but even he was not sure of the location of the hotel according to the Reporters on the ground. Again its easy for you to jump to conculsions safely tucked in your office and your home protected from danger by the police and your nation - but its a completely different situation that these men found themselves in.

It seems that the Judge again after reading this seemly unbaised investigation by a journalist agency that the judge is after a politicial prosecution not one of justice.



As for your remarks about prosecution in Spain: Under Spanish law any crime against a Spaniard abroad can be prosecuted in Spain if it is not prosecuted in the country where it was committed. It is up to the Spaniards to decide how they will proceed.

You might want to check the case law already noted from a legal review of the most recent case involving Spain's popular judicial action and private prosecution. Its not just how the Spaniards will decide to proceed - since they can not try the individual in absense. Again the Spanish judge is not acting in accordance with the stated wishes of the National Government but off of a popular judical action (I believe that is the Spanish Term for the action) with a private prosecutor. And the case is under review by the public prosecutor because the judge as stated by the prosecutor did not have the authority or the juridicition to bring such a charge.

Popular judicial action and private prosecution smacks of politics - or as I said earlier the worst type of politics - politics running amok.

[solypsist]

I recall someone in Germany (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4236489.stm) wanting to issue an arrest warrant for Donald Rumsfeld a few months ago.

Spain is no different. Perhaps what may result is a payout by the US to the family of the killed journalist, like with the Italian journalist (http://jurist.law.pitt.edu/paperchase/2005/03/prosecutors-question-wounded-italian.php) who was wounded by US troops.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Key point: This is a wonderful lose - lose - lose situation for the USA.

If we don't turn over our soldiers to a Spanish court, relations between our two countries will be further strained. Of course, if we do, our military morale will take a hit as our soldiers loathe begin second-guessed on combat decisions by people who were not there and can't understand (Redleg's comments highlight this.

If the tank crew fires at a suspected enemy position, they may target and kill non combatants or friendlies -- not at all what you want on your conscience. If they don't fire, then one of those suspected positions will prove to be an actual and they or their fellow soldiers will end up dead.

If the US restricts allied journalists from war zones to prevent such incidents, we exceed our rights and impinge freedom of speech. If we don't, then folks trying to do their job get put in harms way and may end up with their lives hanging on someone's battlefied decision -- made under stress and without the best information.

This Iraq struggle is a real bite in the posterior. As far as I can tell from opinion polls, every single one of our allies -- save the ones in Eastern Europe -- would like an immediate pullout followed by a shut-down of all non-police efforts against terrorism. The general tenor seems to be "we can't defeat it, you are fools to try, we need to minimize it a bit, catch them when we can, but basically learn to live with it."

Gah!

[Soulforged]

And this is why we don't want anything to do with the International Crime Tribunal/whatever its called.

No your country doesn't want it because they love autnomous absolute power on internal affairs, mostly on subjects that concern them too.

[Xiahou]

Local news and newspapers.
The events took place in april 2003, and by that time that area of baghdad was under control of the US.
I dont think so. If I remember right, immediately after the incident, the Iraqi information minister came to the hotel and promised to protect journalists. Hardly under US control...

[Soulforged]

Now before someone says I am speaking out of my rear-end - as another member already pointed out. Spain does not have jurisdiction in Iraq The event happened in Iraq concerning a Tank Crew that fired at a hotel that contained journalists. The journalists were in the middle of the war zone. This particular charge is nothing but a political stunt on its face. When does Spain have jurisdiction of United States servicemen who might or might not have committed a crime against a spanish citizen in a nation away from the courts jurisdiction. Spainish courts only have jurisdiction in Spain for actions committed in Spain that violate Spanish Law. Under the European Union Charter, Spanish Courts might have jurisdiction over crimes committed by European Union members against Spanish citizens within the European Union. However this alledge crime was committed by soldiers of a nation not in the European Union in a hostile war zone that was known to the Spanish Citizen to be a war zone that was not on Spanish soil.

Wrong Redleg. Every country can use some theory or the other to proove jurisdiction on criminal matter. One of those theories is the one of nationality, thus if the victim or the author was of spanish nationality the spanish law can intervein, is all a matter of international struggle, but they've jurisdiction.

Personally I can´t really blame the tank crew, I don´t believe they shot the journalists on purpose "Hey, Joe, look, the photographer of that magazine is aiming a camera at us again". "Oh, really? He´s been following us around all day, Pete. Blast him."Sorry. Since when the murder has to be intentional? It could be imprudent, I don't know the exact word in english but it has to be manslaughter.

[Adrian II]

I actually doubt that DeCamp gave the order to fire - it most likely was the S3 in the TOC that looked at the map and gave the order in the Col's name.De Camp himself admitted that he gave the order to fire in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. I am sorry, but there are just too many inconsistencies in the official version of the incident to let it rest.

[Divinus Arma]

Whew. I had to stop reading everyone's posts because it made me so angry.

Some of you just don't get it. And I am not going to post an argument because I may as well bang my head against a wall.

[Redleg]

De Camp himself admitted that he gave the order to fire in an interview with the Los Angeles Times. I am sorry, but there are just too many inconsistencies in the official version of the incident to let it rest.

Yep talk about lacking the ability to understand how the system works - I guess you didn't bother to read the CPJ link which contradicts LTC De Camp with first hand reports from journalists. But I also knew you would only focus on that statement and that is why I left it in verus editing it out like I mentioned just before the CPJ investigation cut and paste with link.


The immediate reaction from U.S. commanders to the attack on the Palestine Hotel was anger and consternation. Lt. Col. Philip DeCamp, Captain Wolford's commanding officer, began screaming over the radio, "Who just shot the Palestinian [sic] Hotel?" according to Tomlinson. Tomlinson listened as DeCamp confronted Wolford. "‘Did you just f***ing shoot the Palestinian [sic] Hotel?'" he demanded of Wolford.

Tomlinson said that at first, Wolford was not sure that what he had hit was in fact the hotel. Tomlinson continues:

"[After a delay of some minutes] Wolford says, ‘Yes, yes. We had an observer up there. And DeCamp says, ‘You're not supposed to fire on the hotel.' And then there is a brief discussion about what he did see and why did he fire because this was very serious. They weren't supposed to shoot at the Palestine Hotel."

Afterward, DeCamp ordered Wolford to cease firing and drove his tank to meet Wolford, apparently to have a private discussion.

Now does that sound like the actions of a commander that just ordered another to fire on a hotel?

So the offical report states the actions of the soldiers were within the rules of war.

The investigation by a journalist organization dedicated to the protection of journalists finds that the incident could of been avoided but was not deliberate.

BTW the link to the CPJ was not an official verision - it was there own informal investigation using sources on the ground who were there and are journalists to boot. But I guess you must believe that they are only another official version of the Military report. Talk about blinders.

From what I read of the whole article its a good comprhesive report by journalists who understand how to sort facts from the information they gathered. But to you its just another baised report and investigation because it doesn't call for the hanging of the soldiers. Seconding guessing soldiers on the ground is always the bulwark of people who are safely tucked away at home.

Criminal charges by a judge in Spain who wishes to pursue a popular jurist action with a private prosecutor - is not a investigation into justice for the sake of justice - its a political statement.

[Redleg]

Wrong Redleg. Every country can use some theory or the other to proove jurisdiction on criminal matter. One of those theories is the one of nationality, thus if the victim or the author was of spanish nationality the spanish law can intervein, is all a matter of international struggle, but they've jurisdiction.

I guess you missed the link to the Spanish International law review concerning such a matter that I posted after the comment you quoted along with the statement that I learned something today.

Already addressed and corrected myself - but thanks anyway. ~D

[Soulforged]

Already addressed and corrected myself - but thanks anyway. ~DMy pleasure...A gift to you in return of so many past corrections.~:cheers:

As said above, this is a good argument against international courts.No it isn't. And in fact I only know one country that disrespects the International Court (when all the others abide to it wonderful results are achieved), obviously the old USA.

[Soulforged]

Our system is just fine, thank you. We don't need a bunch of socialist Europeans who--quite honestly--can't seem to tell up from down and left from right at times, telling us how to do things. That's you saying it...I hope that some day nationalities dissapear as all the ideas of superior being fall too...And is socialist supposed to be some kind of insult or diminishment?

I don't like to go nationalist on you like this, but it takes a very wierd american to like the idea of international courts.Don't take me wrong, I never hoped any american to say the contrary.~D You've your way I've mine.

[GoreBag]

Socialism is a faux-pas in the US, as I understand it. By the way, "disrespect" isn't a verb. ~;p

[Papewaio]

disrespect

n 1: an expression of lack of respect [syn: discourtesy] 2: a disrespectful mental attitude [ant: respect] 3: a manner that is generally disrespectful and contemptuous [syn: contempt] v 1: show a lack of respect for [ant: respect] 2: have little or no respect for; hold in contempt [syn: disesteem] [ant: respect]

[GoreBag]

State the source, please? I was always taught that it wasn't.

[HarunTaiwan]

An embedded reporter was with the US unit and she back up their version. They were under fire and thought it was coming from that building.

They did not know it was the Palestine hotel. Do Europeans honestly believe US forces would want to kill a Spanish cameraman? Oh, maybe I could believe they were aiming for Peter Arnett and missed?

If this is how Europeans feel, then I can't wait till they send every last French soldier who shot at civilians (oh, they claim some were armed) in a crowd in Cote D'Ivoire back there for trial and punishment. Also, this was witnessed by Swiss residents in the hotel and there is video.

What? You won't send those guys to Ivory Coast for trial? Why not?

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

Actually, the general commanding the troops in Cote d'Ivoire has been demoted (along with a colonel, and a few others); they face murder charge in France.

So we do care about that kind of business, thanks :bow: and we don't let it stop at private.

And it's a lot of noise about nothing: I think all the judge wants is some kind of answers from US authorities, not really arresting the GIs. It's a 2years case, and after being ignored for 2 years, he just moved on the next option.

If the US were a little bit more forthcoming in sharing their investigation with the Spanish judge, he would be able to go back to claimant and tell them justice is underway in the US... Since he can't say that, he got to do something.

Louis,

[Brutus]

I don't see what you are all worrying about. Surely your American Congress will put down some nice magical legislation trick that makes it legal for the US to invade one of its allies to 'liberate' American citizens held captive by a war tribunal? That's how they settled a possible problem with the International Tribunal in The Hague, didn't they?

Would be kinda interesting to see American GI's invading the tourist beaches of Scheveningen or the Costa del Sol and taking the local prison by force though...:dizzy2:

[Ser Clegane]

Quite frankly, I hope the first idiot who tries to arrest them gets a warning shot, and wisely decides to go back home to Spain.

:rolleyes:
Do you think somebody is going to come to the US to arrest them?

This whole thing has more symbolic character - it shows that the court in Spain is trying all it can to bring this case forward:

- the judge asked the Pentagpon for cooperation
- he offered to come to the US and question the tank crew there
- as nothing happened, the judge draws the last option - as the soldiers do not appear before court to be questioned, he orders an arrest to force them to do so (which seems like pretty normal procedure in any court case)

Nobody will arrest these guys in the US - should they set foot on Spain (something they obviously won't do) they could be arrested to force them to appear before court.

The judge did his job (unlike the Italian authorities in the cable car incident a couple of years ago) and the family of the journalist sees that their court system to not withdraw for political reasons.

The question here whether the soldiers were justified to fire at the hotel is excactly the discussion the judge in Spain is trying to answer - keep in mind that the tankls crew has not been convicted in Spain.

[Papewaio]

State the source, please? I was always taught that it wasn't.

Verbs are actions and feelings.

You can be disrespectul to someone (the action) and/or you can feel disrespect for a person.

I disrespect Nazis. That is a legitmate sentence and all sentences have a verb... verbs are to sentences what vowels are to words. So which is the verb?
I or disrespect or Nazis?

[Major Robert Dump]

If I Were The Soldiers I Would Go To Spain And Turn Myself In Because Then I Would Get Free Room And Board And Telemundo And I Wouldn't Have To Work, And Since I Wouldn't Be Convicted It Would Be Cool Because Then I Would Get Out And Come Home. Vacation.

[Kanamori]

'Disrespect' is a transitive verb, perhaps that's where the confusion is. If it has no object, it is non-sensical.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

State the source, please? I was always taught that it wasn't.

Until about 1990, you would have been correct. The verb form of the word crept into general usage following its adoption/broad use by the quote/unquote "hip-hop" subculture. So you may well have been taught that it was improper usage by a "purist" only to have mass culture supercede this.

If you want a language where no such changes occur, try a dead one like Latin. English is still alive and changing, quod erat demonstratum.

[Devastatin Dave]

:rolleyes:
Do you think somebody is going to come to the US to arrest them?

This whole thing has more symbolic character - it shows that the court in Spain is trying all it can to bring this case forward:

- the judge asked the Pentagpon for cooperation
- he offered to come to the US and question the tank crew there
- as nothing happened, the judge draws the last option - as the soldiers do not appear before court to be questioned, he orders an arrest to force them to do so (which seems like pretty normal procedure in any court case)

Nobody will arrest these guys in the US - should they set foot on Spain (something they obviously won't do) they could be arrested to force them to appear before court.

The judge did his job (unlike the Italian authorities in the cable car incident a couple of years ago) and the family of the journalist sees that their court system to not withdraw for political reasons.

The question here whether the soldiers were justified to fire at the hotel is excactly the discussion the judge in Spain is trying to answer - keep in mind that the tankls crew has not been convicted in Spain.
In typical European fashion; everythings symbolic and no action. ~:handball:

[Goofball]

In typical European fashion; everythings symbolic and no action. ~:handball:

Much like U.S. diplomats talking about concepts like "peace" and "security" as Dubya sits in his throne room deciding who to bomb next.

:duel:

[Gawain of Orkeny]

Deleted.

[Ser Clegane]

In typical European fashion; everythings symbolic and no action. ~:handball:

I know - you would prefer an administration that would send out an invasion force to hunt down these three guys and blow up their neighbours in the process of doing so (of course afterwards it would turn out that you might have to drop the charges against those three).


j/k



... no ... wait

[Meneldil]

I find liberal people's comments to be much funnier than their conservative counterpart.

Anyway, the judge is doing is job, and although probably nothing will happen, someone seriously screwed up his job, and should be blamed.

Still, I wonder why most of the journalists killed during a conflict are killed by american troops, who are supposed to be on the good side.

[Redleg]

Still, I wonder why most of the journalists killed during a conflict are killed by american troops, who are supposed to be on the good side.

Could it be that they position themselves next to the enemy to get a camera shot? ~:eek:

Reporting a war from the war zone intermixing yourself with the combatants is a dangerous thing.

[Adrian II]

Still, I wonder why most of the journalists killed during a conflict are killed by american troops, who are supposed to be on the good side.The U.S. Army has developed a track record of killing non-embedded journalists, both Americans and foreigners. It wants journalists to be embedded in order to control their movements, contacts and perspective. It makes life generally difficult and sometimes miserable for non-embeds and I suspect that in some cases they are intentionally targeted. This shooting of a hotel full of non-embeds is very suspicious indeed; it is part of a pattern and it should be fully investigated by another institution than the one primarily responsible for the shooting.

I find it amusing that some American posters reacted so incredulously to the report about the Spanish arrest warrants, and immediately came up with improvised arguments that the soldiers must have been innocent, that the Spanish judge must be out of order and that the warrants must be politically motivated. I could state with equal force that the shooting of the Spanish journalist must have been politically motivated, and I would be equally wrong.

Dutch authorities recently arrested an Angolan peace negotiator named Membe on Dutch soil at the request of the United States, because Membe is being accused in the U.S. of having been involved in the kidnapping of an American twenty-five years ago. The terms of Mr Membe's possible transfer to the U.S. are now being negociated. The kid-napping took place twenty-five years ago in the midst of a civil war where the American had no business being, and the only indication of Mr Membe's alleged involvement with the kidnappers is that he seems to have been the boy who brought the kidnapped American his food and some outside messages.

Yet, we consider the case on its merits because that is part and parcel of the civilised discourse between nations. I reckon Mr Membe, surviving as a youth in the midst of a civil conflict that makes the American Civil War look like a convent, had to make some 'split-second decisions' in his lifetime as well. But some decision just don't stand up to scrutiny.

[Devastatin Dave]

I know - you would prefer an administration that would send out an invasion force to hunt down these three guys and blow up their neighbours in the process of doing so (of course afterwards it would turn out that you might have to drop the charges against those three).


j/k



... no ... wait
Muhhahahahaha!!!

**rubs hand together with sn evil smile on dace***~D :laugh:

[solypsist]

http://www.rehumanize.us/journalists.html

i referenced this with the intent to demonstrate that reporters killed by US troops (direct or indirect) was low, at least i believed it to be so.

7 out of 19 (on this list) were killed by Americans. this is unfortunate; that's almost one-third.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

:rolleyes:
Do you think somebody is going to come to the US to arrest them?

This whole thing has more symbolic character - it shows that the court in Spain is trying all it can to bring this case forward:

- the judge asked the Pentagpon for cooperation
- he offered to come to the US and question the tank crew there
- as nothing happened, the judge draws the last option - as the soldiers do not appear before court to be questioned, he orders an arrest to force them to do so (which seems like pretty normal procedure in any court case)

Nobody will arrest these guys in the US - should they set foot on Spain (something they obviously won't do) they could be arrested to force them to appear before court.

The judge did his job (unlike the Italian authorities in the cable car incident a couple of years ago) and the family of the journalist sees that their court system to not withdraw for political reasons.

The question here whether the soldiers were justified to fire at the hotel is excactly the discussion the judge in Spain is trying to answer - keep in mind that the tankls crew has not been convicted in Spain.

Does Spain have the authority to order their arrest though, considering the death of the journalist wasn't on Spanish territory. If I kill someone in Mexico, Canada can't order my arrest for it, to be tried in Canada, AFAIK. Either way, nothing is going to happen to the crew, lest Spain wants some infrastructure damage.

Edit: 1/3 is very low, soly, considering most nations only have a few thousand men there, we sent in over 250,000.

[Ser Clegane]

Either way, nothing is going to happen to the crew, lest Spain wants some infrastructure damage.


I think you have been watching too many cartoons on TV lately...

[Redleg]

The U.S. Army has developed a track record of killing non-embedded journalists, both Americans and foreigners. It wants journalists to be embedded in order to control their movements, contacts and perspective. It makes life generally difficult and sometimes miserable for non-embeds and I suspect that in some cases they are intentionally targeted. This shooting of a hotel full of non-embeds is very suspicious indeed; it is part of a pattern and it should be fully investigated by another institution than the one primarily responsible for the shooting.

An investigation by both the Military and Committee to Protect Journalists has been conducted - and seemly discounted by the judge in Spain and you. An accusation based upon emotion does not equate to delibrate targeting of journalists. Unfortunate circumstances and the desire to report from the front lines lead to the deaths of many of the journalists - and some were unfortunate accidents like the events around the Palestine Hotel.



I find it amusing that some American posters reacted so incredulously to the report about the Spanish arrest warrants, and immediately came up with improvised arguments that the soldiers must have been innocent, that the Spanish judge must be out of order and that the warrants must be politically motivated. I could state with equal force that the shooting of the Spanish journalist must have been politically motivated, and I would be equally wrong.

Oh but the arrest warrant is politically motivated regardless of what you believe to be right or wrong. Just look at how the Spanish Public Prosecutor reacted to the filing of the arrest warrants.


And the National Court prosecutor's office said later Wednesday it would appeal the arrest warrant on the ground the magistrate has no jurisdiction in the case, Spanish news reports said.

Two investigations have been conducted one by the Military of the United States - and one by the Committe to Protect Journalists come to basically the same conclusion that the Hotel was not delibrately targeted. Even look at your comments show that your jumping to conclusions that are not there faster then the ones you are attempting to blame.





Dutch authorities recently arrested an Angolan peace negotiator named Membe on Dutch soil at the request of the United States, because Membe is being accused in the U.S. of having been involved in the kidnapping of an American twenty-five years ago. The terms of Mr Membe's possible transfer to the U.S. are now being negociated. The kid-napping took place twenty-five years ago in the midst of a civil war where the American had no business being, and the only indication of Mr Membe's alleged involvement with the kidnappers is that he seems to have been the boy who brought the kidnapped American his food and some outside messages.

Yet, we consider the case on its merits because that is part and parcel of the civilised discourse between nations. I reckon Mr Membe, surviving as a youth in the midst of a civil conflict that makes the American Civil War look like a convent, had to make some 'split-second decisions' in his lifetime as well. But some decision just don't stand up to scrutiny.

Oh look attempting to place another judgement in the discussion, and speaking of merits - I guess you wish to ignore what a journalist group has to say about the Palestine Hotel?

On this particlur issue has a previous investigation by a governemental agency determined that no crime has been conducted by the individaul. Not just an official investigation but also a private one, has determined the same conclusion. Attempting to compare situations and leaving out the critical piece that two investigations have been done and both show that no willful violation of the laws of war, nor the deliberate targeting of journalists was done.

Speaking of Hyperbole - next you will want to bring me up on Murder Charges for my particaption in Desert Storm.

[Adrian II]

http://www.rehumanize.us/journalists.html

i referenced this with the intent to demonstrate that reporters killed by US troops (direct or indirect) was low, at least i believed it to be so.

7 out of 19 (on this list) were killed by Americans. this is unfortunate; that's almost one-third.According to the IFJ, there are 18 deaths of journalists and media staff at the hands of US soldiers since the invasion of Iraq that still require proper investigation. And I was not just talking of Iraq, because the track record of unaccounted for U.S. 'media killings' goes back at least to the 1999 Kosovo war. The bombings of neutral media offices would be part of the pattern.

http://www.ifj.org/default.asp?index=3429&Language=EN

[Ronin]

Does Spain have the authority to order their arrest though, considering the death of the journalist wasn't on Spanish territory. If I kill someone in Mexico, Canada can't order my arrest for it, to be tried in Canada, AFAIK. Either way, nothing is going to happen to the crew, lest Spain wants some infrastructure damage.

Edit: 1/3 is very low, soly, considering most nations only have a few thousand men there, we sent in over 250,000.


that´s funny......considering that just the other day someone pointed out in this board that the US government claims the right to prosecute for crimes involving it´s citizens outside of the united states......

what´s good for the goose.....

[Adrian II]

Two investigations have been conducted, one by the Military of the United States - and one by the Committe to Protect Journalists (..)Yes, I am aware of it. We have one report from the U.S. Military (the perpetrator, hardly a credible judge) and one from the CPJ based solely on reporters' accounts. After the CPJ filed a FOA request for the Army report and got a sanitised version of it in early 2004, they were very disappointed. 'The failure of the U.S. military to provide an honest and open accounting of what occurred keeps alive questions about whether U.S. forces are taking the necessary steps to avoid endangering journalists' (CPJ executive director Ann Cooper).

I mean: come on, earlier in the morning of that same April 8th, the U.S. bombed the Al-Jazeera office in Bagdad (just like they had bombed the Al-Jazeera office in Kabul two years before) and killed their cameraman; half an hour later an American tank intentionally destroyed the Abu Dhabi TV office, and half an hour after that it fired at the Palestine and killed another two non-embedded journalists. That is a bit rich for a coincidence. I think Eason Jordan may have had a point when he remarked (during the Davos Forum 2005) that U.S. forces deliberately target journalists. This has to be investigated and the fact that the United States are not cooperating does not release other people from their obligations.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

that´s funny......considering that just the other day someone pointed out in this board that the US government claims the right to prosecute for crimes involving it´s citizens outside of the united states......

what´s good for the goose.....
Is Spain the US, and did Spain claim this right? If so, fine, they can *try*, but we won't cooperate for a casualty of war, but if not, then their grounds for this are unfounded.

The infrastructure damage was a joke, CAN'T YOU BLOODY SOCIALISTS TAKE A BLOODY JOKE? Apparently not, *whistles* we won the cold war though

So what if a journalist dies, he's in a combat zone, he's at risk. He should know this, and if his death means more US Soldiers living, he's expendable.

[SwordsMaster]

Is Spain the US, and did Spain claim this right? If so, fine, they can *try*, but we won't cooperate for a casualty of war, but if not, then their grounds for this are unfounded.

The infrastructure damage was a joke, CAN'T YOU BLOODY SOCIALISTS TAKE A BLOODY JOKE? Apparently not, *whistles* we won the cold war though

So what if a journalist dies, he's in a combat zone, he's at risk. He should know this, and if his death means more US Soldiers living, he's expendable.


Except that it is the soldier´s job to die, when it isn´t the journalist´s...

[Adrian II]

*whistles* we won the cold war thoughNo, the mujahedeen did that. And they are winning their next war as we speak...

Just joking, just joking. :coffeenews:

[Devastatin Dave]

No, the mujahedeen did that. And they are winning their next war as we speak...

Just joking, just joking. :coffeenews:
In a way I hope they do. I'd love to see what these kind peaceful muslims would do to the likes of the Netherlands and persons such as yourself. I bet, just between your 5 prayers a day, you'll wish those Ameircans you hated so much in your former life had succeded. Maybe we'll see, maybe we won't. Eurabia will determine that.

[Adrian II]

In a way I hope they do. I'd love to see what these kind peaceful muslims would do to the likes of the Netherlands and persons such as yourself. I bet, just between your 5 prayers a day, you'll wish those Ameircans you hated so much in your former life had succeded. Maybe we'll see, maybe we won't. Eurabia will determine that.By that time I'll be banned by this forum's right-leaning mods anyway. I'll start my own guerilla, lobbing Edam cheeses into the American embassy in The Hague.
'Keell de Americans. Alhamdullilah!'
Ka-schluck!

[Papewaio]

Ohhh I love Edam! I would have to camp out in the American Embassy claiming to be a refugee in the Netherlands just so I can get free Edam!

Had a neighbour who made cheese the traditional Netherlands whey ~;) in NZ, huge smelly round pieces of cheese. Some of which had a rind so hard that it felt like a car tyre. But the taste. ~D

[Ronin]

In a way I hope they do. I'd love to see what these kind peaceful muslims would do to the likes of the Netherlands and persons such as yourself. I bet, just between your 5 prayers a day, you'll wish those Ameircans you hated so much in your former life had succeded. Maybe we'll see, maybe we won't. Eurabia will determine that.


if your government keeps helping them gain more and more support in the muslim world through your ill-tought actions....it might just happen....

[Adrian II]

Had a neighbour who made cheese the traditional Netherlands whey ~;) in NZ, huge smelly round pieces of cheese. Some of which had a rind so hard that it felt like a car tyre. But the taste. ~DRest assured, Abdul ibn HardanII's cheese commandos will not spare the NZ embassy! http://matousmileys.free.fr/ali.gif

[Papewaio]

So they are linked to the French are they? ~:cool:

[Adrian II]

So they are linked to the French are they? ~:cool:French cheeses do not have a similar impact. At least that is what they taught me in Mercenary School.
http://matousmileys.free.fr/pinocchio2.gif

[Papewaio]

If they start using the blue vein cheese it will be an act of biological warfare and I will have to respond with a box of crackers and some port. ~D

[Adrian II]

If they start using the blue vein cheese it will be an act of biological warfare Within the framework of mutually assured destruction, the Dutch can always resort to their Limburgian Stinkcheese. Honestly, that is its real name, and for a real reason. It is the only cheese in the world that actually gets rid of flies instead of attracting them...
:sick2:

[Papewaio]

Ah that's not even nuclear.

Try Stinky Tofu. It is so bad that you would want to gargle with Durian juice just to get rid of the smell. It is the real reason that Taiwan is not allowed into the UN. It smells like a pile of human turds unflushed and left in the midday sun... if you are lucky. ~:cool:

[Adrian II]

Ah that's not even nuclear.

Try Stinky Tofu. It is so bad that you would want to gargle with Durian juice just to get rid of the smell. It is the real reason that Taiwan is not allowed into the UN. It smells like a pile of human turds unflushed and left in the midday sun... if you are lucky. ~:cool:I think we, um, get the picture, Papewaio.

*Nearly chokes on own vomit*

http://www.artspacegallery.co.uk/Images/Artists/Paintings/BluntEdge/turd.jpg

[Papewaio]

The last sentence is an accurate description of the smell of Stinky Tofu. Truly. :book:

[Louis de la Ferte Ste Colombe]

The last sentence is an accurate description of the smell of Stinky Tofu. Truly. :book:

Pape is right :embarassed:

It is truely that bad... Only cheese that might compare (remotely) is the worm infested "walking" stinky corsican cheese.

Blue cheese is easy and sweet compared to it.

Louis,

[Mouzafphaerre]

.
If they're so bad.....why do they make and even ...glp... eat them?!? :gah:
.

[PanzerJaeger]

The U.S. Army has developed a track record of killing non-embedded journalists, both Americans and foreigners. It wants journalists to be embedded in order to control their movements, contacts and perspective. It makes life generally difficult and sometimes miserable for non-embeds and I suspect that in some cases they are intentionally targeted. This shooting of a hotel full of non-embeds is very suspicious indeed; it is part of a pattern and it should be fully investigated by another institution than the one primarily responsible for the shooting.

Where did I put my tin foil hat? ~:rolleyes:

Please tell me that was hyperbola and you dont actually believe that nonsense... :no:

[Tribesman]

Perhaps the American soldiers in Afghanistan should have killed the embedded Australian journalists with them .
It may have been better than letting them finish making their documentary , as of course the soldiers actions and words are not representative of what America is all about .
And we know that , as once again the US administration has had to tell us that the US soldiers are not representative of America .

[Papewaio]

.
If they're so bad.....why do they make and even ...glp... eat them?!? :gah:
.

I don't know why but my wife likes it... I told her if she has it she could sleep on the couch.

[SwordsMaster]

...but we all know that you are going to be the one that ends up sleeping on the couch if you are too picky for your own good...~;)

[Adrian II]

Where did I put my tin foil hat? ~:rolleyes: Next to your sound reasons, reliable sources and convincing argument?http://matousmileys.free.fr/gruebel2.gif