Campy Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 A Spanish judge has issued an international arrest order for three US soldiers over the shelling of a Baghdad hotel that killed a cameraman. Judge Santiago Pedraz issued the warrant for Sgt Shawn Gibson, Capt Philip Wolford and Lt Col Philip de Camp, of the US 3rd Infantry Division. Jose Couso, of Spanish TV network Telecinco, died in April 2003 when a US tank fired on the Palestine Hotel. Reuters news agency cameraman Taras Protsyuk, a Ukrainian, was also killed. The National Court agreed to consider filing criminal charges against three members of the tank crew two years ago, acting on a request from Mr Couso's family. 'No co-operation' Speaking on Wednesday, the judge said he had issued the arrest order because of a lack of judicial co-operation from the US in the case. The family of Mr Couso said they were delighted at the news, and that they now hoped justice would be done. US officials say the tank crew believed they were being shot at when they opened fire, although TV footage of the incident did not record any incoming fire. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4357684.stm I bring this up, not because I can or cannot justify their actions, but this could prove to be a pretty interesting development. A military action, executed outside of the safety net of a declared war, is just that - a military action. At what point do mistakes, if one was made, in such a situation become criminal? Could this case ultimately have farther reaching effects, like to the status of Gitmo detainees (ie, POWs vs foreign nationals being denied due process)? It bears worth watching...
OGTEleven Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4357684.stm At what point do mistakes, if one was made, in such a situation become criminal? 481124[/snapback] When the mistake is made by the US and the victims are from a country run by socialists with no grasp on reality.
UConn James Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 I'd also pose the question, What in the world makes them think they have jurisdiction? You know... seeing that Spain is like 2,000 miles away from Iraq. The journalist chose of his own free will to go to a war zone; you know and accept the dangers, including being shot by any side. If this were a case of "Hey, there's a Spanish reporter inside, let's launch one at his room" yes they should be brought up on charges, but short of that, friendly fire isn't.
Campy Posted October 20, 2005 Author Posted October 20, 2005 I'd also pose the question, What in the world makes them think they have jurisdiction? 481444[/snapback] I'm sure the lawyers around here could verify, but I think they have jurisdiction because the suit was brought before their court. They have venue until/unless it's challenged? A couple of friends of mine are attorneys and from their conversations with each other, I gather that venue is, or can be anyway, one of the more confusing subjects in law.
Alaska Darin Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 I'd also pose the question, What in the world makes them think they have jurisdiction? You know... seeing that Spain is like 2,000 miles away from Iraq. 481444[/snapback] Personally, I'd like my government to toss its weight around were it an American citizen being mistreated in a foriegn country. Not so much in these circumstances, though.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 I'd also pose the question, What in the world makes them think they have jurisdiction? You know... seeing that Spain is like 2,000 miles away from Iraq. The journalist chose of his own free will to go to a war zone; you know and accept the dangers, including being shot by any side. If this were a case of "Hey, there's a Spanish reporter inside, let's launch one at his room" yes they should be brought up on charges, but short of that, friendly fire isn't. 481444[/snapback] And oh-by-the-way, wasn't Spain for the war at that point, to the point of sending troops? So the current government is pressing charges against people who a former government had decided they were allied with, for a wartime event that's recognized under international law as falling under the "sh-- happens" rule of war (i.e. collateral damage)?
Ghost of BiB Posted October 20, 2005 Posted October 20, 2005 And oh-by-the-way, wasn't Spain for the war at that point, to the point of sending troops? So the current government is pressing charges against people who a former government had decided they were allied with, for a wartime event that's recognized under international law as falling under the "sh-- happens" rule of war (i.e. collateral damage)? 481555[/snapback] Publicity stunt. Aren't most Government officials here accused somewhere else of being war criminals by somebody? I don't know that collateral damage applies, but it's going to sure make war difficult if the lawyers can get involved whenever people get injured or killed. Of course, Mickey's wheels are turning as we speak...
Nanker Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4357684.stm I bring this up, not because I can or cannot justify their actions, but this could prove to be a pretty interesting development. A military action, executed outside of the safety net of a declared war, is just that - a military action. At what point do mistakes, if one was made, in such a situation become criminal? Could this case ultimately have farther reaching effects, like to the status of Gitmo detainees (ie, POWs vs foreign nationals being denied due process)? It bears worth watching... 481124[/snapback] This is simply excellent news for the family of Natalee Holloway! Can indictments be very far behind? Bring those three smiley bastards to the US for a fair trial.
/dev/null Posted October 22, 2005 Posted October 22, 2005 This could be loosely interpreted as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine and give us cause to invade them next
blzrul Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 This could be loosely interpreted as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine and give us cause to invade them next 482723[/snapback] Which would be cool if we had the bandwidth to do it. What with Iraqistan and all, we can't even manage a couple crummy hurricanes let alone another pre-emptive strike. What a sad, sad state we're in.
Berg Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Which would be cool if we had the bandwidth to do it. What with Iraqistan and all, we can't even manage a couple crummy hurricanes let alone another pre-emptive strike. What a sad, sad state we're in. 482919[/snapback] I've only been there once, but I thought Washington State was OK. You could always move back to Texas.
Adam Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 That judge would do well to keep to himself- he has no juristiction over us, and if he thinks he's gonna kick sand on the our feet, we'll stomp a mudhole in him, and walk it dry. He's a ^%*^%$ joke
KD in CA Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 I've only been there once, but I thought Washington State was OK. You could always move back to Texas. 482944[/snapback] Too much rain, it makes people depressed and they get a little crazy. Just like nozzlenut.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted October 23, 2005 Posted October 23, 2005 Publicity stunt. Aren't most Government officials here accused somewhere else of being war criminals by somebody? I don't know that collateral damage applies, but it's going to sure make war difficult if the lawyers can get involved whenever people get injured or killed. Of course, Mickey's wheels are turning as we speak... 481561[/snapback] Of course, it could achieve what the pacifists always wanted: a complete and total end to war. Because who's start a war when they can get sued for it and have a couple thousand lawyers crawling up their ass?
Ghost of BiB Posted October 24, 2005 Posted October 24, 2005 Of course, it could achieve what the pacifists always wanted: a complete and total end to war. Because who's start a war when they can get sued for it and have a couple thousand lawyers crawling up their ass? 483071[/snapback] Maybe we could twist this to put all the lawyers in a field with some big knives. No, that's a simple fantasy.
Recommended Posts