Spain orders arrest of US troops

[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.