Spain orders arrest of US troops

[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.

[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.

[solypsist]

I recall someone in Germany 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 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!

[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/pa...ine_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.

[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.

[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.