Spain orders arrest of US troops

[BDC]

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

[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.

[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?

[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

[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.

[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...

[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.

[GoreBag]

Eh. Catch 'em if you can.

[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...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

[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.

[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]

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.

[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.

[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.