# Spain issues arrest warrant for 3 US soldiers **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 20, 2005, 3:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028 "2005-10-20T03:36:53Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 18\ **Page:** 5
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 3:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/81 "2005-10-21T15:30:21Z")
Oh, and as far as Gitmo goes… not happy about that. But it’s irrelevant to the legal authority of this Spanish judge. But this has about as much of a case behind it as our criminal (not our civil… those can take money he has in the US away) indictments of Osama. If we hadn’t gone after him with physical force, it would have been spitting in the wind. This is not a war crime. At worst, it is friendly fire, and that _after_ the soldiers checked target. [http://www.iht.com/getina/files/283710.html](http://www.iht.com/getina/files/283710.html) The Spanish Government at the time, in fact, said the existing investigation by the US was sufficient. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 3:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/82 "2005-10-21T15:32:47Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > The soldiers were not under the authority of Spanish law while shooting the building. They were under the authority of international law and Spain is a rightful plaintiff. > [@](#): > > AJ committed an offense against Saudi citizens by showing much glorious and perfect skin. That would only matter if she was under Saudi jurisdiction at the time, which she wasn’t, thank God, and I hope she never has to go there. Such a body was not meant to be clothed. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/83 "2005-10-21T16:51:40Z")
> [@Weirdave](#): > > They’ll get a fair trial from a judge who issued a warrant for their arrest against the wishes of his own government on nonexistent legal grounds? This must be some new definition of “fair” that I haven’t been briefed on. How can you assert there is no legal ground? Are you versed in Spanish law? Do you assert that Spanish law does not allow Spanish authorities to prosecute someone who has unlawfully killed a Spanish citizen abroad? Would you also deny American authorities the right to prosecute someone who has killed an American citizen outside America? Because it seems to me that those here who most ardently defend the right of America to intervene in other countries are the same ones who deny other countries the right to do anything. I do not feel that way. Just because someone has a gun and you don’t does not mean they have the right to kill you. It means they _can_ kill you but it does not make it legal. The fact that America can get away with doing things other countries would or cannot do does not mean the rest of the world admits it or accepts it. It only serves to delude provincial Americans who then do not understand why there is so much dislike around the world for what America is doing. And, speaking of the Spanish judicial system, they recently tried several members of Al-Qaeda who participated in the planning of the 9/11 attack on the WTC. The trial, as far as I know, was transparent and generally praised among observers. In contrast with this, pretty much the entire world, beginning with NGOs such as the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and continuing with the EU and many national governments, have criticized America’s handling of prisoners and their torture, denial of due process of law and other basic human rights. America may think it is right but it cannot help it if the entire world thinks what it is doing is wrong and evil. In other words, the view today in the world is that the Spanish government is way ahead of the government of the USA when it comes to Human Rights, due process and fair trials. Leave out all American and Spanish citizens and I doubt you will find anyone who will say today America’s system is more fair or more observant of Human Rights. If it comes down to the word of the Spanish government versus the word of the American government, I will believe the Spanish government. No question about it. > [@Airman Doors](#): > > I’ll see if I can get the DA right on that one, too. It makes about as much sense as charging soldiers for crimes when the reporters were in the wrong place at the wrong time. It happens. It is not a crime. Of course you are twisting things here. The charge is killing someone deliberately and unnecessarily which is a crime under the laws of all nations, including the USA. Just because it is a war zone does not mean you are entitled to kill anyone just because you feel like it. I’d like to see how many of those here who defend the notion that it was not a crime because shit happens in a war zone would also defend the notion that the killing of any foreigner in Iraq these days by the insurgents is not a crime because it is a war zone and shit happens. The American government does not subscribe to this idea at all and is very willing to punish those doing the killings. > [@Airman Doors](#): > > I stated an absolute truth. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. So, any Americans killed in Iraq in the last two years were just “in the wrong place at the wrong time” and you would not consider any crimes were ever committed? Or does the rule only work when Americans are the killers but not when they are the victims? And, talk about extending your jurisdiction, the USA also has kidnapped people abroad. I’d like to see how they’d feel if other countries did that on US soil. Let’s face it, America speaks of law and morals when it helps them but when they are blatantly breaking all laws and morals they just say “we can do it because we are the big dog”. Well, in that case America has to accept it when other people do shitty things to Americans and they say “we do it because we can and it is the way we can fight you”. Either laws and morals are meant for everybody or not. When America leaves them aside it cannot then demand that other peoples abide by them. More later as time permits… ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 4:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/84 "2005-10-21T16:57:02Z")
Obviously, such a display of wanton flesh is an Offense Against God, and a Crime Against Humanity ™. A Saudi judge would have as much right (applying his cultural norms) to call AJ before him and order he spanked. Spanked I say! Naughty, naughty AJ! ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 5:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/85 "2005-10-21T17:03:27Z")
Allow me to extend, revise and respell my previous post. Obviously, such a display of wanton flesh is an Offense Against God, and a Crime Against Humanity ™. A Saudi judge would have as much right (applying his cultural norms) to call AJ before him and order her spanked as the Spanish judge has in this Iraqi case. Spanked I say! Naughty, naughty AJ! Unless of course only upright Europeans have some sort of moral superiority that Saudis do not have. I buzzed over RF’s contentions that Double Jeopardy is an Anglo-Saxon concept. I think he is wrong. I would certainly like to see a case of double jeopardy in American law. Americans cannot be tried twice for the same offense. Same same for most people in the world. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/86 "2005-10-21T17:36:20Z")
> [@xtisme](#): > > Cutting through all the (usual) anti-American bullshit It’s only BS if it is not true but just calling it BS because it is inconvenient to acknowledge is not acceptable. Please point out specifically and in detail what you consider to be not true. > [@xtisme](#): > > If its so cut and dried why no official protest from the Spanish government (or did I miss that…if so, a link would be good as I haven’t found one yet) directly? It is not like you make it look that the judge has, out of nowhere and for no reason, decided to start these proceedings. The family of Couso have been pushing these proceedings since day one. Are you saying the judge should throw out the case just because you don’t like it? The judge is not pre-judging any guilt. That is the whole point of the proceedings. But for Americans to say “there is no point to these proceedings because there is no way an American can be guilty” is just silly. Of course, the previous Spanish government (Aznar) tried to squelch the whole thing but the new Spanish government, in spite of the enormous pressures that the American government exerts, has, indeed, condemned the attack. The minister of labor, Jesús Caldera, expressed, in the name of the entire government, their condemnation of the attack which caused the death of Jose Couso. [Minister condemns attack on Hotel Palestine](http://www.josecouso.info/article.php3?id_article=131) The Spanish government has, indeed, asked for explanations from the American government as has the Ukrainian government but there’s not much they can do when America just responds with the same tired old BS. > [@xtisme](#): > > Because the Spanish believe whatever doesn’t mean its reality based. Of course, if you are among the faithful, then any and all evidence presented by Spain is just a “conspiracy theory” and anything the American Government has declared is the Gospel truth. . . even if the Americans have been proven to be lying repeatedly and they change their story several times. The Spanish government seems to me to be much better grounded in reality when it comes to Iraq than the American government. Remember, it is the American government who thinks they can make their own reality. Of course, the “real reality” is biting them in the ass. When the American general ordered the Spanish commander to detain Al-Sadr, the Spanish commander refused saying it would cause a general insurrection. Americans called the Spanish all sorts of names for not even being able to get a stupid cleric but after the Spanish troops pulled out of Iraq and Americans tried to go after Al-Sadr, this caused the insurrection which led to the razing of Fallujah and they still did not get Al-Sadr. Today Al-Sadr is an essential part of American efforts to stabilize Iraq. So who is “reality based” here? > [@xtisme](#): > > This isn’t even a very GOOD conspiricy theory. The tank shot at a building. A tank. A building. Unless you are saying that US intelligence knew where the exact reporter they wanted to wack was, had a spotter team out to paint the position for the tank crew, etc, a tank wouldn’t exactly be the first choice to assassinate a pesky reporter. > [@George Orwell](#): > > The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them. No, the fact is that the American government has asserted they conducted an investigation and that the entire rest of the world has said the results were full of holes and that the investigation was just a cover-up. This is not only the Spanish government but pretty much all impartial observers. Nobody is claiming that they targeted Couso in particular but that there was a deliberate policy of trying to scare non-embedded reporters away. The facts are, more or less, along these lines: It is well documented that American forces were deliberately firing on non-embedded reporters, probably to try to scare them away so America would have more control of information coming out of Iraq. America did not like the information coming out of independent reporters. It is also well documented that the American government routinely lied about these things and routinely changed their story when their lies proved false. They destroyed some Al-Jazeera installations and at first claimed it was an accident. When confronted with evidence that they had been targeting that installation for a long period of time until they destroyed it, then they changed their story. And it went around like this, in circles. You are asking the world to believe the last declaration of a government who has been shown to be lying continually. And the last declaration makes as much sense as the previous ones which were later changed. That is too much to ask of the world. When asked about the firing on the Palestine hotel they first said the commander of the tank had received fire from there. Link: [Muere un cámara de Telecinco al atacar EEUU su hotel en Bagdad](http://elmundo.es/elmundo/2003/04/08/enespecial/1049789321.html) When this was proven a lie they changed their story. Again. And again. When the tank commander was interviewed he said he was ordered to fire there by superiors who were somewhere else. I do not believe he ever said he was under attack or felt there was any threat from the Palestine Hotel. So the whole story comes crumbling down again. Add that to all the lies about firing on Al-Jazeera and you can understand why people are skeptical. Very skeptical. One thing we know for certain is that the American government lies. \*Often. A lot. Compulsively. Reflexively. Instinctively. \* Americans may choose to ignore all this evidence but the Spanish people have seen it on TV. Repeatedly. It is shown again on every anniversary. Jon Sistiaga, the guy who worked with Couso, and was there when they were hit, appears on TV every day and often the topic comes up again. He has recently published a book about the war. America can just claim there is nothing here and just let’s move on but that is not going to satisfy the Spanish people who have chosen not to close their eyes to the evidence. The evidence so far shows that the shot was ordered from higher up and was not related to any hostility coming from the Palestine Hotel. In other words: it suggests a crime was committed, most probably not by the tank crew themselves but by higher ups in the command line… Attempts by America to bury it by claiming they investigated it fairly are doomed to failure. Just like American claims about Abu Ghraib are doomed to fail outside America. They only serve to quiet the already faithful but they do not convince anyone else. Spain has not accepted the explanation. A Ukrainian reporter was also killed in the incident and the Ukrainian government also rejected the American explanation. Several others were wounded and rejected the explanation. Reporters without borders also rejected the explanation… Hmmm, I see a pattern here. Did anybody except America find the explanation convincing? Anybody? BTW, there was a thread [US troops shoot Reuters cameraman](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=205288) at the time of the incident where the same arguments were presented on both sides. If America has such a solid argument about this why does it not send American officials out in Spain to explain their side on the media? Why do they choose to be silent and hide behind the walls of the compound of the American embassy? It would seem to me that if it was so clear-cut they would do well to go out and explain the case. Could it be that they know their case is less than convincing? Do they believe all Spaniards to be incredibly stupid or pig-headed so they would not understand or accept good arguments presented to them? Or is it that, in any case, America does not give a shit about world opinion? Gaining hearts and minds is essential in order to avoid defeat and yet America arrogantly refuses any kind of explanations for its acts. It will pay dearly for this arrogance. Indeed, it is already paying for it. Those who think America owes no explanations to anybody fail to understand that America has lost world opinion in this fight and that this adds immensely to America’s problems. “We don’t need nor care about world opinion” may give the arrogant a little good feeling now. . . but don’t expect the world to help you when you get yourself in deep water. You cannot act like a rogue nation and expect the world to sympathize with you. > [@](#): > > \*\*“Whom the gods would destroy, they first make mad with power.” \*\* > Historian Charles A. Beard, when asked what major lessons he had learned from history. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 5:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/87 "2005-10-21T17:45:32Z")
> [@Monty](#): > > May we have a cite about the same crime being tried by two different courts in the US? I think you may be talking about an event (such as the Rodney King beating) where a state court tried one crime (assault?) and a federal court tried another crime (denial of civil rights?). The same act cannot be tried twice by the same sovereign (even claiming a different law) but another sovereign is free to try the same act again. It is not a matter of different law but a matter of different sovereign. You can find it easily if you search threads where double jeopardy has been discussed and I am sure our expert lawyers can clarify this but, in any case, that is not the topic of this thread and I do not want to hijack the thread with that. The point is that a claim of double jeopardy in this case is absolutely preposterous for several reasons. – not the least of which is the fact that they haven’t been tried at all! > [@Monty](#): > > Let’s have a cite for this too, shall we? AFAIK, the prohibition on buying cigars from Cuba applies to American citizens, not to John England who happens to be visiting Cuba and then returning to England without so much as glancing at the US. Please pay attention. I already gave you a cite. It’s called the Helms-Burton act > [@](#): > > [THE HELMS-BURTON ACT](http://www.skralaw.com/Articles/cuba.htm) > On March 12, 1996, the United States enacted “The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act” (commonly referred to as Helms-Burton) (the Act). This controversial legislation, which was introduced on February 14, 1995 by Sen. Jesse Helms and Rep. Dan Burton, expanded the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba through measures aimed at penalizing third countries, firms and individuals trading with Cuba. It is considered illegal by the rest of the world and has been protested repeatedly by many countries including Canada, all of Latin-America and Europe. It penalises foreign individuals and companies who trade with or invest in Cuba even though it is legal for them to do so in their own countries. In fact, in some cases it is _illegal_ for them to comply with the Helms-Burton act but America expects foreigners to abide by American law rather than with their own laws. Talk about extraterritoriality. Cases have been discussed on this board. ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 5:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/88 "2005-10-21T17:51:11Z")
BTW, **Banquet Bear** , appreciate the effort, research and impartiality shown in [your post above](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=6709255&postcount=79). Still more replies to come… ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 6:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/89 "2005-10-21T18:07:36Z")
Oh please! The Helms-Burton Act says that if your company, ship, whatever does business with Cuba it cannot, under certain circumstances do business in or with America. It is not a criminal sanction, but the extension of a ‘secondary boycott.’ Yes, European companies find it awkward to have to turn down Castro’s bloody money in order to trade with America, but they can do so if they like. It is a restriction on Americans in America from doing business with those who provide financial support to Castro. ---
**Author:** ![Weirddave](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/919ad9/32.png) [@Weirddave](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Weirddave)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/90 "2005-10-21T18:35:40Z")
> [@redfury](#): > > America expects foreigners to abide by American law rather than with their own laws. Talk about extraterritoriality. Cases have been discussed on this board. You’ve just spent paragraph after tedious paragraph explaining why you think Americans should comply with Spanish law over an incident that didn’t even take place under Spanish jurisdiction, and then you come out with this. Double standard much? Also, to answer the question you directed at me, if American reporters were, say, covering a war in Chetznia (sp?), and they were killed when their hotel came under fire from a Russian tank, I would never expect an American judge to issue a warrant for the Russian tanker’s arrest, and were an American judge to do so, I’d roll my eyes and laugh at him for exceeding his authority, just like I’m doing at the Spanish judge in this case. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/91 "2005-10-21T18:44:34Z")
Exactly my point, Paul. (Almost called you Saul there. Interesting typo) Dio, how, exactly, do you say the soldiers were under international law? Does international law cover things that are _not_ Crimes against Humanity? I am, one notes, ignoring the ‘but the US does it too!’ comments, as each case is unique, and the question is the authority of the _Spanish_ judge, not the American ones. What is the authority of a Spanish High Court judge to rule on a warzone in a different country? Civil and criminal law does not, generally, apply to soldiers. Military law does. International Law does, but that is _generally_ not applied to individual soldiers, but their leaders. [http://www.spainlawyer.com/guialegal/guialegal.cfm?IDCAPITULO=14010000](http://www.spainlawyer.com/guialegal/guialegal.cfm?IDCAPITULO=14010000) Look! An article about the authority of the courts! Hm. He’s not a member of the Supreme Court. He’s a member of the National Court. > [@The Webpage](#): > > The National Court (Audiencia Nacional) has its seat in Madrid, with jurisdiction over the whole Spanish territory, with the following chambers: > The Criminal Chamber tries those cases involving crimes committed against the Royal Family, high Government officials, major drug trafficking, counterfeiting and offences committed outside the Spanish Territory which are prosecuted in Spain. It also decides on Extradition requests and hears appeals against the sentences determined by the Central Criminal Courts, the Central Instruction Courts and the Central Minors’ Court. Offenses comitted outside the Spanish Territory which are prosecuted in Spain. Check. What offences comitted outside the Spanish Territory can be prosecuted in Spain? [http://www.constitution.org/cmt/stimson/con\_crim\_jr.htm](http://www.constitution.org/cmt/stimson/con_crim_jr.htm) Well, that’s the analysis for American law: Location of the Offender. Working on Spanish law. Maybe if I look up Pinochet? Found a good link, but I can’t get to it. No cache, either. Project Muse. [http://www.bc.edu/bc\_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bciclr/25\_1/05\_TXT.htm](http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bciclr/25_1/05_TXT.htm) Here we go. Analysis of Noriega and Pinochet. > [@](#): > > In comparison, unlike the Noriega case, where the federal courts exercised jurisdiction pursuant to the territorial and protective principles, initial jurisdiction by the Spanish Courts was justified through an exercise of the universal and passive personality principles.246 However, similar to Noriega, the House of Lords, accepting the position asserted by the Spanish prosecutors, quickly disposed of the defense arguments that Pinochet was immune from jurisdiction of foreign courts for acts committed while he was the head of state.247 Although the ultimate outcome is unlikely to please many in the international community, the case against Pinochet has set a powerful precedent likely to be used by other international tribunals seeking to prosecute foreign leaders for human rights violations and other violations of international and domestic law.248 The ‘universal and passive personality principles’? Hum. What’re those? Interestingly, the article covers _heads of state_, not individual soldiers acting under legal orders. This is a bit of a stretch, even for the Spanish. Why this will not go to the ICC, even without the US. > **[Why The Case Against Chávez Will Not Be Heard In The Hague](https://venezuelanalysis.com/analysis/225?artno=1056)** > > Recent reports regarding a decision by the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish National Court to forward a case brought against President Chávez to the International Criminal Court in the Hague merit clarification. > [@](#): > > The ICC will not accept jurisdiction of those cases containing frivolous allegations, claims with no merit, or cases currently in progress in other nations with proper jurisdiction. All claims alleged must fall within the crimes set forth in Articles 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute, which include Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes. [http://web.amnesty.org/pages/uj-index-eng](http://web.amnesty.org/pages/uj-index-eng) Hm. Universal Jurisdiction. Aha! Personal Jurisdiction. [http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engior530011999?OpenDocument](http://web.amnesty.org/library/index/engior530011999?OpenDocument) > [@](#): > > Gradually, international law has recognized that courts could exercise other forms of extraterritorial jurisdiction, such as jurisdiction over crimes committed outside the territory by the state’s own nationals (active personality jurisdiction), over crimes committed against the state’s essential security interests (protective principle jurisdiction) and, although this form of jurisdiction is contested by some states, over crimes committed against a state’s own nationals (passive personality jurisdiction) > [@](#): > > Crimes against humanity are now defined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court to include the following conduct when committed on a widespread or systematic basis: murder Systematic basis. > [@](#): > > No political interference. Decisions to start or stop an investigation or prosecution of grave crimes under international law should be made only by the prosecutor, subject to appropriate judicial scrutiny which does not impair the prosecutor’s independence, based solely on legal considerations, without any outside interference. … You know, I’m reading this, and it looks like engaging in warfare at all is potentially an international crime. Huh. Still, it doesn’t _really_ seem written to apply to a single soldier’s actions in regards to friendly fire. [http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2001/07kiss.htm](http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/general/2001/07kiss.htm) Henry Kissinger’s perspective. [http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010901faresponse5577/kenneth-roth/the-case-for-universal-jurisdiction.html](http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20010901faresponse5577/kenneth-roth/the-case-for-universal-jurisdiction.html) A rebuttal to Kissinger. > **[Universal jurisdiction](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_jurisdiction)** > > Universal jurisdiction allows states or international organizations to claim criminal jurisdiction over an accused person regardless of where the alleged crime was committed, and regardless of the accused's nationality, country of residence, or any other relation with the prosecuting entity. Crimes prosecuted under universal jurisdiction are considered crimes against all, too serious to tolerate jurisdictional arbitrage. > The concept of universal jurisdiction is therefore closely linked to the... Wikipedia [http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/jurisdiction-universal.html](http://www.crimesofwar.org/thebook/jurisdiction-universal.html) Interesting perspective. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 7:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/92 "2005-10-21T19:19:18Z")
Gona take some time to wade through the mountain of cites on this one and I’m strapped at work today. Just didn’t want anyone to think I’m skipping out…lots to think about here though. I’ll especially get back to Banquet Bear and Red Fury on some of the things they asked me and points they raised. -XT ---
**Author:** ![Monty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/monty/32/47_2.png) [@Monty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Monty)\ **Post date:** [October 21, 2005, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/93 "2005-10-21T19:31:31Z")
Red Fury: Please pay attention…to the Constitution of the United States. It clearly says ([Amendment V](http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.billofrights.html)) > [@](#): > > nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb That’s a nifty word there, isn’t it, offense? Clearly, the governing law of the United States permits separate trials for different offenses. BTW, would you happen to have any real and valid cites for the separate states which compose the United States being sovereign entities themselves (I mean cites other than political rhetoric at party conventions and that line from _Hawaii 5-0_)? ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 4:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/94 "2005-10-22T04:18:55Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Dio? Quick honest question. > If a Saudi judge puts out an arrest warrant for, say, Angelina Jolie, as she was not wearing a chador in Tomb Raider, would you suggest that we turn her over? > > The Saudi judge has about as much authority in this case as the Spanish one. > > What if you’re filmed jaywalking in Alaska? Would you go to Texas if a judge there issued an arrest warrant for you, for that? **E-Sabbath** , please keep up with what has already been posted. Do you deny all nations any extraterritorial jurisdiction? Do you deny the USA has any right or recourse if Americans are killed abroad? If that is the case you can write your lawmakers and tell them to abolish the Helms-Burton act and all others which give the USA extraterritorial jurisdiction. Including the invasion of Iraq where Americans were NOT being killed by Saddam Hussein. That didn’t stop America from invading though. > [@E-Sabbath](#): > > The soldiers were not under the authority of Spanish law while shooting the building. You keep saying this and you are wrong. Spanish law claims jurisdiction worldwide in the killing of a Spanish national just like American law claims worldwide jurisdiction in similar cases and in many others far more extensive than the laws of any other nation. Now, if you want to deny any country has any extraterritorial jurisdiction, then you can start protesting America’s claims because they are the most extensive by far. * * * > [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Did these soldiers break some long-established rule? We do not know that do we? That is what trials are for. The soldiers are presumed innocent until shown otherwise, but needlessly killing innocent civilians is, indeed, universally considered a crime, even in times of war, even by the United States. You are defending them not because they are innocent but because they are American. If they were foreigners who had killed Americans I doubt you’d be saying the same thing. Would you? > [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > It is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty in the best European colonial tradition. This is truly rich. So it is alright for America to invade the country but for Spain to assert jurisdiction over the murder of one of its citizens is a “violation of Iraqi sovereignty”. Do you realize how ridiculous this sounds? Have you read the thread? Are you aware that America asserts rights to extraterritorial jurisdiction more than any other country in the world? To say Spain today is "violating Iraqi sovereignty"is truly laughable. So, what is America doing in Iraq? > [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Idea: let the Iraqis decide the law in their own country. For a change. A lot of us said that before America invaded but America would not listen. It seems America is learning an expensive lesson. And it ain’t over yet. We shall see who laughs last. I have a feeling it might be Iran. And China. And others. Not America. Ignoring **Paul in Saudi** ’s other BS and diversions > [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > I buzzed over RF’s contentions that Double Jeopardy is an Anglo-Saxon concept. I think he is wrong. I would certainly like to see a case of double jeopardy in American law. Americans cannot be tried twice for the same offense. Same same for most people in the world. Let’s start with the fact that I never said "Double Jeopardy is an Anglo-Saxon concept"or anything which comes close. Rather than “buzz over” you _really_ need to learn to read and understand before you go posting such nonsense. Read the post again. These soldiers have not been tried by anybody so they can be tried by anyone and double jeopardy does not exist. But, even if they had been tried by one sovereign, they could still be tried by another and double jeopardy would not exist. The double jeopardy rule prevents more than one trial for the same act and by the same sovereign. If you do not understand that, please read some of the previous threads on this issue or consult with some of our learned lawyers who will be happy to explain it to you, I am sure. In the meantime rest assured that your claim that the soldiers could not be tried by Spain because of the double jeopardy rule is 100%, totally wrong. If you want to make an issue of this you might want to start a new thread rather than hijack this one. Continued… ---
**Author:** ![RedFury](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/ec9cab/32.png) [@RedFury](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RedFury)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 4:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/95 "2005-10-22T04:24:50Z")
> [@Paul in Saudi](#): > > Oh please! > > The Helms-Burton Act says that if your company, ship, whatever does business with Cuba it cannot, under certain circumstances do business in or with America. It is not a criminal sanction, but the extension of a ‘secondary boycott.’ You were the one who claimed the extraterritorial jurisdiction claimed by Spain was “silly”. I am showing you America claims extraterritorial jurisdiction more often and in more cases than any other country and in instances where no other country does. But that is fine by you because it is America. I see. If America claimed jurisdiction over the murder of an American citizen abroad that would be good and fine but if Spain does the same that is “silly”. I see. I think I understand now. America can invade a country because someone was killing others even though none of them were Americans. I see. But Spain cannot even have an opinion on whether killing a Spaniard is good or bad. I see. > [@Paul](#): > > Yes, European companies find it awkward to have to turn down Castro’s bloody money in order to trade with America, but they can do so if they like. It is a restriction on Americans in America from doing business with those who provide financial support to Castro. By the same token: Yes, Americans who may have committed crimes against Spanish citizens find it awkward to avoid vacationing in Spain in order to commit those crimes. Of course, if they _really_ want to vacation in Spain they can avoid killing people, Spanish or not. Or, if killing people is so important and high up on their list, then, so what? Don’t they have other places to go? I am sure there are many nice places to go in America. By the way, it should be noted that the thread title “Spain issues arrest warrant for 3 US soldiers” is incorrect as this is an act of a single Spanish judge and it no more represents the Spanish Government as a whole than a single act by a single American judge represents the entire American Government. > [@Monty](#): > > Red Fury: Please pay attention…to the Constitution of the United States. It clearly says (Amendment V) > > nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb > > That’s a nifty word there, isn’t it, offense? Clearly, the governing law of the United States permits separate trials for different offenses. Yes I can read the Constitution. in the same paragraph it says: “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law” and yet, the Supreme Court, in all their learned and knowledgeable wisdom, interprets the Constitution in ways that only lawyers would understand and so, there you have it: in fact those words mean that what is happening in Guantanamo is legal and that when a State declares a defendant not guilty after he did something, the Feds can come in and prosecute him for the same act. If you have not heard of this you really need to read the news because it happens relatively often. Cops who beat someone and get off free on State charges and then the Feds come in with Civil Rights violations. Look, this is not the topic of this thread and the American Constitution has no force in Spain. If you want to discuss the double jeopardy clause I suggest you first look up other threads where it has been discussed in depth by our resident lawyers who know ten times more than you and I together. In one of those threads the whole issue was explained and I am just reporting what was said. You can take it up with **Bricker** or others more knowledgeable than you or me. Hmm…methinks that about covers it for today. Cheers. Or not. Later. ---
**Author:** ![Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ccd318/32.png) [@Paul\_in\_Qatar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paul_in_Qatar)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/96 "2005-10-22T05:12:00Z")
The basic mistake RF is making here is an attempt to wrestle the requirements of civil law into a wartime situation. When the Coalition invaded Iraq it took upon itself the customary and legal requirements of an occupying power. It kept those obligations until they were passed back to the Iraqi government a few years ago. The actions in question were conducted on Iraqi territory in an area under disputed jurisdiction. In such a case it is the obligation of American military law to rule. Certainly the Iraqis lacked the ability to enforce their law at that moment and place. The Americans investigated. They found their to be no case. The Iraqis now have sovereignty, they have also declined to bring charges. So why they heck do the Spaniards think they can conduct a better investigation, a more fair trial or issue a more just verdict? What meat does this judge eat that makes him so great that he can reach across the globe to interfere in Iraq affairs? The Coalition accepted the responsibilities that came with occupation. Among those was the requirement to provide law enforcement. Spain paid no price, but somehow feels it can enforce its law where it will. Iraq is sovereign again. I am sorry you do not like or respect it, but remarkably enough Iraq is permitted to run its own criminal investigations. I know the Europeans have had time with this, it is in fact the case. Consider it we were to admit the new legal doctrine RF proposes. These soldiers could be at risk under American, Iraqi, Spanish, Russian, Thai and whatnot law. Don’t like what the Americans did? Urge the Iraqis to act. The Iraqis don’t measure up? Get the Spanish involved. The Spanish fall short? Call up … Ever hear of ‘jurisdiction shopping?’ What a massive threat to everyone everywhere. Are you willing to let a Saudi court to have this sort of reach? Can it define Crimes Against Humanity as it sees fit? Why not? I am not defending these people because they are Americans. I am not even sure they are Americans. I am defending the rule of law. The law does give the state large powers, but more importantly it places huge restrictions upon the state. One of these restrictions is the restriction of jurisdiction. The hands of Spain are simply tied in this case. That might be good or it might be bad, but that is the fact. RF is calling for a new legal doctrine that would give the state, all states, huge new powers. Those powers of course would be used against us. It scares the heck out of me. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 5:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/97 "2005-10-22T05:15:15Z")
Actually, RedFury’s not even reading the thread, or he would have noticed the notes on jurisdiction I placed therein. Read, analyze, reply, please. ---
**Author:** ![AFAIKnow](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/a6a055/32.png) [@AFAIKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AFAIKnow)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2005, 6:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028/98 "2005-10-22T06:10:53Z")
It’s silly to argue that this is a criminal matter that should be settled in a Spanish court. The US Is adamant about it’s complete sovereignty it have over US troops. This is the exact reason it decided to pass on the ICC. Recruits waive many of their constitutional civil liberties when they join. Their rights as citizens are eclipsed by their duties to the branch of service they join. They also are protected by the government from prosecution from any but the USMCJ. In that light, and considering those soldiers were on an active duty mission and followed orders, those troops were under the sole jurisdiction of the US, it’s constitution, and it’s military. That is not to say that Spain doesn’t have a right to do what thy want. As many have said, US laws do not tell another country what to do. They have very right to snatch up and detain evry US citizen within their borders until the US hands over those named in the warrant if they wanted to. And the US has every right to retaliate with everything, and I mean _everything_, within it’s power. What is so silly is the fact that a US ally would act this way. It is not like those with legal jurisdiction did not investigate and decide not to prosecute. Demanding that the US extradite it’s citizens for alleged crimes committed within it’s own jurisdiction is a slap in the face to US sovereignty. I have noticed how the Spanish Government has instantly distanced themselves saying that it was an independent court and had no connection to the government itself, but I am also sure that such a blatant insult to such a powerful ally could be handled by the government. They say they don’t see a backlash because the court is independent. If those troops are ever arrested and taken into custody by Spain, then the public opinion in the US would be a hell of allot more detrimental to Spain than a formal government objection would ever do. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spain-issues-arrest-warrant-for-3-us-soldiers/327028.md?page=4)