Spanish Judge issues arrest warrant for US soldiers in Iraq

[jameson]

Fooling around while they were being shot at? I kind of doubt it...

Does the prosecutor have a video of the incident or something? Barring some very concrete evidence the only thing to come of these men being brought to court would be accusations and counter-accusations. I just don't see the point.

I doubt it too, but IIRC the Palestine hotel where the Spaniard died was the place where pretty much all of the international journalists stayed. This was a known fact at the time. Now maybe Iraqi troops were firing from the hotel and the exigencies of combat required the troops to return fire - we don't know about that - but firing at the hotel pretty much entailed firing at journalists.

The whole thing seems to me to be an attempt to get some revenge against the US military for the Bush administration pissing off the world and getting a lot of people killed. I can understand the sentiment, but that doesn't make it just.

Not so - the criminal charges are a result of pressure from the journalist's family, as per the article:

In late 2003, the National Court, acting on a request from Couso's family, agreed to consider filing criminal charges against three members of the tank crew

 

[eyrei]

indeed, but how is the Spanish judge able to develop doubts of his own if he can't investigate the matter? Anyone can tell the press 'oh, these guys were shooting at us' to cover up a murder or an accident.

That sword cuts both ways. In the US courts, some evidence is generally required before an arrest warrant can be issued.

erhm, the prosecutor has the dead bodies of non-combatants who were, a the time of their deaths, in an obviosuly civilian structure. That's more than enough to open an investigation.

Obviously civilian structure? There are no obviously civilian structures in a firefight, and until I see some evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume this was a firefight.

The whole thing seems to me to be an attempt of a proper civilized judicial system to teacht he US military that outside the US, the US military is not above the law and its appropriate procedure!

I agree that the US military is not above the law, and shouldn't act as though it is. However, if judges from every country that has lost people in Iraq were given the authority to drag US soldiers into their judicial system to stand trial for using the weapons they are given to defend themselves with, that would be a huge mess. An independent investigation might be a possibility, but the Spanish court system is no more independent in this matter than the US military.

 

[h4ppy]

He's given the warrant, lets see him enforce it.

 

[eyrei]

He's given the warrant, lets see him enforce it.

That attitude is exactly why this situation arose in the first place...

 

[carlosMM]

That sword cuts both ways. In the US courts, some evidence is generally required before an arrest warrant can be issued.

if you read the original info completely you'll see there IS reason: not giving a statement is considered, in all countries wordlwide, as obstruction of justice.

Obviously civilian structure? There are no obviously civilian structures in a firefight, and until I see some evidence to the contrary, I'm going to assume this was a firefight.

a) a hotel that is known to harbour journalists is civilian until you have a reason to believe otherwise.
b) wrong direction - dead bodies are evidence of a killing, thus an inquiry is in order.
no evidence (before the judge) of a firefight means no end of inverstigation.

What makes you assume it was a firefight? The fact that the soldiers are Americans? or that they were in Iraq in general?

you really surprise me - I thought you'd be impartial enough to be able to see that the judge can only act on evidence he has - and all he has is dead bodies!

I agree that the US military is not above the law, and shouldn't act as though it is. However, if judges from every country that has lost people in Iraq were given the authority to drag US soldiers into their judicial system to stand trial for using the weapons they are given to defend themselves with, that would be a huge mess.

agreed!

but then, this is not about dragging them before hte court, this is about them and the US military and judicial system refusing to answer questions!

An independent investigation might be a possibility, but the Spanish court system is no more independent in this matter than the US military.

why independent? there are spanish and US nationals involved. if this means it must be 'independent', then no case involving people from two states may ever be handled by courts of either of the two states, actually, taken a step further, no US court may ever deal with any American (after all, they might not be independent) and no Spanish cout ever deal with any Spanish, too.

You seem to fear politics entering this - well, they were brought in by the US administration, judicial system and the arrogance of Bush, who told the world to either follow his command or fetch the vaseline and bend over. But, surprising as this may be to you, judges in other parts of the world tend to be independent from politics. As opposed to certain countries I might name, Spanish judges are not elected and not appointed by elected politicians. This mens they have the independence you demand - as opposed to US judegs, who are nothing but political cronies, it often seems (think Supreme Court nominatins... )

 

[eyrei]

if you read the original info completely you'll see there IS reason: not giving a statement is considered, in all countries wordlwide, as obstruction of justice.


a) a hotel that is known to harbour journalists is civilian until you have a reason to believe otherwise.
b) wrong direction - dead bodies are evidence of a killing, thus an inquiry is in order.
no evidence (before the judge) of a firefight means no end of inverstigation.

I believe their statement was passed on through the US military. Do you expect them to show up somewhere to be arrested?

What makes you assume it was a firefight? The fact that the soldiers are Americans? or that they were in Iraq in general?

you really surprise me - I thought you'd be impartial enough to be able to see that the judge can only act on evidence he has - and all he has is dead bodies!

Them being in Iraq is a pretty good reason to assume that they were in a firefight. The area is a warzone, despite what my government keeps trying to tell us. I am being impartial, or at least far more than most people. So the judge has dead bodies from a warzone? That is evidence in your book of what exactly?

why independent? there are spanish and US nationals involved. if this means it must be 'independent', then no case involving people from two states may ever be handled by courts of either of the two states, actually, taken a step further, no US court may ever deal with any American (after all, they might not be independent) and no Spanish cout ever deal with any Spanish, too.

You seem to fear politics entering this - well, they were brought in by the US administration, judicial system and the arrogance of Bush, who told the world to either follow his command or fetch the vaseline and bend over. But, surprising as this may be to you, judges in other parts of the world tend to be independent from politics. As opposed to certain countries I might name, Spanish judges are not elected and not appointed by elected politicians. This mens they have the independence you demand - as opposed to US judegs, who are nothing but political cronies, it often seems (think Supreme Court nominatins... )

I do fear politics entering into this. European judges are obviously no more rational or apolitical than US judges, judging by their attempts to charge the US secretary of state with warcrimes.

And you are proposing we condemn these soldiers because Bush is a jackass. That is exactly why I am concerned.

 

[carlosMM]

I believe their statement was passed on through the US military. Do you expect them to show up somewhere to be arrested?

I can't find any evidence that they were willing to answer the judge. Obviously, going to Spain would be a no-no....

Them being in Iraq is a pretty good reason to assume that they were in a firefight. The area is a warzone, despite what my government keeps trying to tell us. I am being impartial, or at least far more than most people. So the judge has dead bodies from a warzone? That is evidence in your book of what exactly?

Ah, nice try... but he has CIVILIAN dead bodies killed by fire from a tank. This is not a case of ricochet bullets. He has dead bodies from a place where normally, even during this war, there was no firefighting going on. Not on the higher floors, either.

I do fear politics entering into this. European judges are obviously no more rational or apolitical than US judges, judging by their attempts to charge the US secretary of state with warcrimes.

Sorry, but the US has repeateldy violated the Geneva Convention. There is nothing political in this. He breaks the law, he gets inverstigated and put to trial. Period.

And you are proposing we condemn these soldiers because Bush is a jackass. That is exactly why I am concerned.

No, not at all. Please hsow me where I wrote anything like that.

Actually, forget the 'please' - I dislike your insinuation so much I demand that you either prove it or take it back.

 

[eyrei]

You seem to fear politics entering this - well, they were brought in by the US administration, judicial system and the arrogance of Bush, who told the world to either follow his command or fetch the vaseline and bend over.

You say right there that politics had entered into it, and that it was Bush's fault. I don't care who's fault it is, but I am sure it is not the fault of these soldiers who were trying to do the extremely hard job they were given.

 

[carlosMM]

You say right there that politics had entered into it, and that it was Bush's fault. I don't care who's fault it is, but I am sure it is not the fault of these soldiers who were trying to do the extremely hard job they were given.

But where do I say they should be 'condemned'?

They should be, whatever the politics involved, INVESTIGATED. No more no less.

Saying that the judge mighgt do this because of politics means basically, you allow the US to use politics, but not Spain. ANY politics in law is wrong, but pointing a finger at Spain when the US started it, is even more wrong.

Please read my posts again

 

[eyrei]

But where do I say they should be 'condemned'?

They should be, whatever the politics involved, INVESTIGATED. No more no less.

Saying that the judge mighgt do this because of politics means basically, you allow the US to use politics, but not Spain. ANY politics in law is wrong, but pointing a finger at Spain when the US started it, is even more wrong.

Please read my posts again

There is a very good chance that the first US soldiers to be brought before a court in any of the less US-friendly areas of the world would be made an example of, and then the Bush administration would send in the special forces to get them out. Politics is most certainly a factor in this

I'm certainly not pointing the finger at Spain, but I am looking at the situation objectively. If the situation were reversed, I would be saying the same thing. I am truly sorry for the journalist that was killed, but vengeance is not worth an international incident.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I think all those saying dumb things like 'you go to a war and get shot' are off track here - the problem is not that accidents will happen, but that the US military - as ususal - refuses to bring light into whether it was an accident or not. Conceivably, the soliders were fooling around, or whatever - don't you think that should be cleared up?

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

There's the light you asked for. Its not proof of anything, but considering the circumstances thats all they needed to do. Spain has no jurisdiction there or any right to have people in country. The certainly have no right to an investigation on their terms. If they don't trust the word of the US military then they shouldn't have been in the war zone. The US did not refuse to shed light on what happened, they just refused to let Spain interogate the suspects or take direct statements from them.

 

[Colonel]

War is War get over it, even if it wasnt an accident which I seriously doubt its war if you are a reporter and go to a war expect a chance to acciendently get killed.

 

[Kyriakos]

If you were the one who had been shot, or maimed, i bet the "war is war get over it" line would seem as cheap to you then, as it does to sensible people now.

 

[SuperSloth]

erhm, the prosecutor has the dead bodies of non-combatants who were, a the time of their deaths, in an obviosuly civilian structure. That's more than enough to open an investigation.

how can you even use this logic in a war where the enemy is often blended in with the civilians? if the reporters do not expect to be injured or killed, than why are they all wearing helmets and flak vests. the incident is unfortunate, but it was an accident. it is one of the many tragic side affects of war. I am sure the majority of us have never experienced the chaos of combat, but im pretty sure most of us would be prone to the same mistake if we were in a situation where some one was trying to kill us.

 

[PriestOfDiscord]

If you were the one who had been shot, or maimed, i bet the "war is war get over it" line would seem as cheap to you then, as it does to sensible people now.

I'm sorry, but it isn't sensible to feel 100% safe in the middle of a warzone. He knew what he was getting into when he reported from Baghdad during the climax of the U.S. invasion. If there was any evidence that these soliders were out to kill foreign journalists, I would be on the side of the Spainards...but none exists.

 

[Speedo]

Screw Spain. They want these men, they can come get them.

 

[carlosMM]

There is a very good chance that the first US soldiers to be brought before a court in any of the less US-friendly areas of the world would be made an example of, and then the Bush administration would send in the special forces to get them out. Politics is most certainly a factor in this

from a US perspective, I understand that. But, the legal system in the (civilized) rest of the world is a bit more independent from politics They would, as opposed to in the US, get a fair trial - but I see why no US citizen can imagine that. Sorry to say, but your state is f-ed up to the max, and your view of judicial systems just confirms this. making an example of the soldiers is exactly the kind of thing the US fought against in WWII - and now does!

 

[carlosMM]

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

There's the light you asked for.

So you also believe Goergo Bush (he's a US official after all) that your courty invaded Iraq because they violated the food-for-oil program... ah, sorry, because they sponsored terrorists... sorry, atacked the US... or, rather, had WMD they kept secret.... ect.?





sorry, but an official telling the press something the soliders supposedly believed is not going to be accepted in any court, not even a US one.

Find a new excuse - i wish you better luck next time

 

[BasketCase]

Random poser: when it's the other way around--the U.S. wanting to get ahold of somebody for trial--what happens?

Such things as, Mexico refusing to extradite unless the U.S. government guarantees the death penalty won't be imposed.

When it's the other way around, other nations try to impose their legal values on us.

Right now, the troops are in our hands. So Spain can go cry a river. Better luck next time.

 

[Esckey]

Man I'm getting of this "Then come get him" crap. Last I checked nobody was above the law, and you gotta play by the rules of the land you live in.

As to this case itself, I'm pretty sure America did a good investigation into this cause it was at a time when America needed help in Iraq.