And this is a fine example of why we won’t participate in the ICC. If you’re in a warzone there is the possibility that you will be killed. The reporters knew that, the soldiers know that, everybody in the world knows that, so what’s with the trumped-up charge?
If we did the ICC this would happen with startling regularity.
I wouldn’t say that with too much confidence. We obviously bit off more than we could chew with Iraq and Russia still can’t subdue Chechnya, and they are 1 and 2 on that list.
I think there’s too much braggadocio around as far as military capabilities go. If you learn anything from this war, it should be that it’s far easier to defend than to attack, and it doesn’t matter how strong you are, when people are defending their homes it gets nasty (which we should have learned from Vietnam).
Let’s just say that in a heads-up comparison nobody can beat the US but your forces are mre than adequate, and that no matter what the force structure is the circumstances are far more important. Fair enough?
That would be awesome. Maybe there would be some accountability.
Don’t forget, we were there illegally to begin with. The entire invasion was a crime, so calling it a “warzone” is disingenuous. It was only a warzone because we made it into one.
So really, ALL American soldiers in Iraq are war criminals, then.
How long a jail sentence do you think all of them should get?
That argument could be made, but personally, I would just go after the civilian leadership that sent them there and limit military prosecutions to those soldiers who violated rules of engagement or the Geneva Convention.
It’s funny, though, that Americans are not concerned about making these kinds of distinctions for countries we don’t like. We don’t get our panties in a bunch about making sure we don’t tar all the Iraqi soldiers who invaded Kuwait as criminals or all the German soldiers who invaded Poland.
Uhuh. They’ve already been found to be not guilty of any criminal act. Whats to prevent some other country from saying ‘Well, just because the Spanish found them not guilty doesn’t mean anything. Let them come HERE. They’ll get a fair trial’? Over and over again? How many times do they need to be found not guilty? If the Spanish think its a whitewash then have them ask for all the information about the investigation. If they have a problem with the investigation and the findings let them list THOSE out for discussion.
What are you talking about? The military investigated the incident. The soldiers actions were reviewed. They were found not guilty of any wrong doing. You might not accept that, perhaps you assume it was a whitewash, but you are doing just that…assuming. Even most unbiased third parties don’t think there was anything criminal in what those soldiers did.
-XT
It’s ridiculous to suggest that countries should be able to investigate themselves for war crimes. WE certainly don’t adhere to that kind of policy for anybody but ourselves. Spain has the right of trial here because they were the victims.
By the way, should we release everyone WE’VE arrested for crimes against US? How do you justify the double standard?
We certainly do adhere to it. Afaik we have never tried or asked to try an allied military for ‘crimes’ against us. Do you have a cite of the US doing so in a friendly fire incident in the past?
Perhaps because they are ENEMY combatants who we were at war with? Again, do you have a cite for the US demanding for trial soldiers from an allied army for ‘crimes’ against the US, against citizens of the US, etc, for a friendly fire incident? If so lets take a look at them. But lets not be stupid and compare apples to oranges, ok?
-XT
I don’t see how whether they’re allies or enemies has the slightest bearing on anything.
Incidentally, there is no evidence that anyone at Gitmo was an enemy combatant nor were we at war with anyone when we captured them.
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? :dubious: This must be some new definition of “fair” that I haven’t been briefed on. :dubious: :dubious:
Is the judge the one who will decide guilt or innocence?
Whatever, they’ll still get more due process that we’re willing to give for all the random civilians we’ve kidnapped and put in cages and tortured. Why the double standard?
shrug I know you don’t. Its obviously a distinction lost on you. But unfortunately for you its a distinction not lost on any other countries. Did you actually try and find if the US had ever done anything remotely similar to what Spain is attempting or did you just blow it off since you don’t see the difference?
Not one, ehe? Every one was just randomly picked up for no reason at all…correct? And you have evidence to back this up? Aren’t most of the enemy combatants at Gitmo folks captured while fighting in Afghanistan?
Besides, its irrelevant…we weren’t allied to either Afghanistan or Iraq (or whatever other nation the supposed enemy combatants were picked up in). None (not one) of the enemy combatants held at Gitmo are from allied militaries (extridited FROM their native nations after being tried/investigated by their own militaries) for a friendly fire incident. None. I’m sorry that you don’t get that but its pretty relevant.
-XT
And it was because it was a warzone that they were there chasing stories.
You know, you are a hoot. All you can say is “war criminal” and “illegal invasion”. Let me ask you something: when we invaded Okinawa in World War II, was that a war crime? I’m just wondering, because we invaded a possession of a sovereign country. How about Germany? Is it ever justifiable to invade land that is not ours and never belonged to us? I’m just wondering, because if it is you are living on land that was made accessible to you via “war crimes”, therefore you’re complicit to theft.
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.
As I said earlier the Spanish journalist on Democracy Now believed the attacks were intentional. That the U.S. soldiers fired on them to kill the journalists who were witnesses to something, they didn’t say. I am not saying that is what happened, but if that is the impression that the Spanish court had I can see why they issued the warrants.
So what is a crime then? If invading another land isn’t, if stealing land isn’t, if killing journalists intentionally isn’t, if torturing “non-combatants” in a “non-warzone” isn’t, then what the hell is? Jay-walking?
Presently, either Sadam Hussain or George W. Bush, depending on whose side you are on. But of more use in looking at extrajurisdictional matters, for folks interested in how a nation extends its jurisdiction to the degree that it can go into another nation to arrest a person, and then bring that person back to the USA for trial, have a read about how this issue was handled in the Norgia matter: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bciclr/25_1/05_TXT.htm#T110
No doubt. There are some germans out there who think the US government was behind 9/11 too. If a German citizen died in the building should we allow them to extradite our government too? Because the Spanish believe whatever doesn’t mean its reality based.
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. Why didn’t we dress up some mopes in ‘terrorist’ rags, walk in with AK’s and pose them for gun fire? Instead we used a TANK during a fire fight…not exactly a percision weapon for taking out a single person, right?
But, because the Spanish believe this ridiculous tail we should take it seriously (after we investigated it and found those troops innocent…what would THAT do to morale I wonders…) because…well, they believe it. And we should respect that belief, no matter how, um, silly, it seems because…well, they believe it. And he’s a real judge and all, and we all KNOW they are infallable. Yes?
Losing is the only crime from an international perspective…at least as far as the questions you are asking there goes.
-XT
I blew it off because it’s completely irrelevant. We don’t have a right to commit war crimes against our allies just because they’re our allies.
Read more carefully. I didn’t say that none of them were enemy combatants or whatever. What I’m saying is that we have yet to produce any evidence that any of them are. There has still been no due process for any of them. name one that the US has even charged with a crime much less proven.
Which they had a right to do without being murdered by US troops.
Japan attacked us first. Iraq did not. And IIRC, we did not try to overthrow Japan’s government. Attacking sovereignty itself is what makes an invasion illegal not just attacking something that is sovereign. What the UN Charter forbids is overthrowing a foreign government.
If its in self defense.
No I’m not. I wasn’t even born yet. Yes America was acquired through genocide and theft but I had nothing to do with it. Before you say “why don’t you leave” I would ask you to a.) give me the money to leave (I’ll be happy to go live in the Netherlands or one of the other progressive European countries) and b.) show me a country or a piece of land anywhere that hasn’t been invaded or stolen at some point. in history.
Nice, Blame the victims. How very American of you.
The American side of the story has the American tank commander thinking he had spotted forward observers for Iraqi RPG attackers in the Palistine Hotel, he waited 10 minutes for confirmation from his commanders to fire on the hotel. He received the confirmation and within a short while higher level commanders seeing the attack on the hotel called the tank group during the battle asking if they had fired on that particular hotel. Someone somewhere fucked up, whether it was intentional (Spanish thought) or accidental (American thought) doesn’t change the fact that there are questions that need answering.
I personally think the Spanish journalist (note the singular here) is angry and bitter, that it was a horrible, shitty accident, but from the Spanish point of view I can see why they are angry, just as Canadians were when that wired up National Guardsman bombed a live fire exercise in Afganistan. The U.S. investigated, tried and punished the pilot for his negligence and Canada was satisfied, we also don’t have the same law Spain does. I understand their anger, and I understand their intentions, I may not agree, but that doesn’t mean I have to assume that they are doing it out of pure spite.