OK, that’s it. I’m done with you. You are so incapable of reason, of common sense… bah. Whatever.
Even more reason to be done with you. That dog hunts just fine when it comes to race and affirmative action and protected classes, but not when it applies to you.
Hypocrite.
I didn’t blame the victims. I stated an absolute truth. They were in the wrong place at the wrong time. Did I say it was their fault? No.
Ah, the hell with it. I’m wasting my time. You live your life with blinders on. You only see what you want to see. Well, have at it. I’m out.
Problem is, its NOT irrelevant. But fine…I figure you know you aren’t going to find much by trying to find cases where the US did something similar (and I have some thoughts on what you would say if the US did something like this to one of our allies for a similar cause).
Allies handle things like this in different ways than enemies do during war time. IF we had committed a ‘war crime’ against Spain (totally ridiculous, but thinking hypothetically), then there are mechanisms in place to deal with it. Generally speaking though one sounds like a hysteric for calling a friendly fire accident a war crime.
I understand the Spanish guys angle for doing so (he wants press, he wants to preach to the choir, he knows he’ll get mileage from this with the faithful and it doesn’t cost him anything, etc)…I am just trying to figure out what you get out of conflating a friendly fire accident into a ‘war crime’. I mean…it lessens the very notion of what a war crime is, making it less important and less meaningful. That can’t be what you are after though. So…is it just more America bashing, are you actually gullable to swallow this ridiculous story as if its real…or is there some other angle here I’m not seeing?
You mean, like the same lack of evidence Spain has presented that a ‘war crime’ has been done against them? Reguardless, in times of war you don’t have to submit evidence to take and hold enemy prisoners…even if the war is undeclared. Least I don’t remember divisions of lawyers hanging around on D-Day to process all those German prisoners…nor a bunch of lawyers ready to process surrendering Iraqi’s during the first Gulf War.
You can keep playing this tune if you like but there is a fundamental difference between capturing and holding prisoner enemy combatants captured on the battlefield (even holding POTENTIAL enemies ‘illegally’ who were captured because they were suspected terrorists) and attempting to extradite an allies soldiers AFTER their case has already been reviewed by your allies military and the soldiers pronounced not guilty…and for a friendly fire accident. Dance and sing all you like but there IS a difference.
Like I said before, it’s ridiculous to suggest that it’s meaningful for a country to exonerate its own war criminals without any input from the victim country.
The idea of universal jusrisdiction regarding certain crimes is centuries old and uiversally accepted in international law by every country, including America. Piracy on the high seas and slaving are two crimes which come to mind. Crimes against humanity are also considered of universal jurisdiction. The United States have accepted in the past the notion of universal jurisdiction over certain crimes and have used it in their own favor when it suited them.
The double jeopardy rule:
A- Refers to trials so it does not come into play as these people have not been tried by anybody.
B- Even if they had been tried, the rule is American and does not apply to other countries plus.
C- Amanzingly, even in America you can be tried by different sovereigns for the same crime (for instance a state government and the Federal Government) so, even in America the rule against double jeopardy would not be violated even if they had been tried which they have not. It helps to know what you are talking about before you start throwing terms around like that.
But, going back to universal jurisdiction, if there is any country today who believes in its right to enforce its laws outside its borders it is the good old US of A. Many countries make it it a crime to murder one of its citizens anywhere in the world and Spain is just one of them. America has claimed the right to intervene in Iraq because Iraqis were being killed, not even Americans. But show me a country who claims the right to criminalise trade with another country (Cuba) where ever that may happen in the world. What country would have the temerity to do that? Yep. The US of A. Of course they cannot do anything unless and until the “criminal” steps on American soil but that does not stop America from telling the entire population of the entire worldwide world that they are committing a crime if they buy as much as a Cuban cigar. Tell me what other country does anything that even resembles this. There’s universal jurisdiction for you.
And when the presidents of Latin American nations get together and issue a declaration condemning the Helms-Burton act, America throws a fit and starts twisting arms in an attempt to get them to withdraw such declarations. This happens every year like clockwork. Of course in this year’s declaration, Cumbre Iberoamericana, the presidents of those countries could add a condemnation of the USA for harboring and protecting a known terrorist. these things do not help the image of America in the world.
In summary: if there is any country who believes in universal jurisdiction, it is the good old US of A. It is just that they believe theirs is the universal jurisdiction and the rest of the world have only limited sovereignty. Only as much as America allows them.
Regarding this specific instance, the judge, in issuing an arrest warrant, is not prejudging guilt but only asserting that the evidence presented supports the concept of “probable cause” that a crime “may” have been commited. Indeed, trials are the means to determine whether a crime was committed or not.
Americans, with no need to look at any evidence, are quick to dismiss any possibility that a crime may have been committed but the evidence seen in Spain is quite troubling and supports the notion that a crime was indeed committed by someone. Maybe not the soldiers who fired, maybe by those higher ups who gave the order, but by someone.
After the incident, the US military was quick to say it was justified and to bury the issue but all others who investigated the incident, including Reporters Without Borders, found there was evidence that the US military had not investigated properly and had just covered up:
Reporters Without Borders called today on US defense secretary Donald Rumsfeld to provide evidence that the offices of the pan-Arab TV station Al-Jazeera and the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad were not deliberately fired at by US forces earlier in the day in attacks that killed three journalists.
. . .
It was an open secret that the US forces were very hostile to any non-embedded reporters. A documentary shown in Spain after the incident under question showed the deliberate fire of US forces on Al-Jazeera’s installations for quite a long time until they finally destroyed their installations. There is no question to anyone seeing this that it was deliberate and prolonged until the objective was achieved. Later the US forces declared this to be an accident. When the American government lies through their teeth like this then it is not surprising that others want to find out what happened for themselves.
Regarding the incident of the firing on the hotel Palestine, the documentary presented loads of evidence which contradicted American claims. Heck, even the American version kept changing as they were shown to be lies.
Spain has very good reason to believe a crime was committed and if a judge issues a warrant that is his right and, probably his obligation. All the evidence indicates a crime was probably committed. The explanations of the American government have not convinced anybody except a few Americans. Everybody who has looked closely at the evidence has come to the conclusion that the American explanations were just coverups. The evidence does indeed suggest that a crime was committed by someone and that the American government just wants to cover the whole thing up. Reporters Without Borders issued statements to this effect.
There are some childish comments along the lines of “come and get them”. Well, Spain has no intention of doing that just like America has had to grin and bear it when some European country denied extradition to America of someone wanted in America.
Whether the judge has the capacity to bring to his court those named in the warrant is not the main issue. American judges routinely issue warrants for people they know they can never hope to catch. Do you laugh at every American judge who issues such a warrant? Of course not. The point is that the warrant serves as notice that so and so is wanted and will be brought to court should the opportunity present itself. For many people it just means they stay out of the USA. That’s all. Big deal.
For those wanted by the Spanish judge, it just means they cannot travel as freely as they might otherwise. If I were them, I’d be pretty careful where I went. Spain is a definite no-no but it would probably be wise to stay away from Europe alltogether because these days extradition within Europe is probably quite automatic. There are probably other countries as well.
The notion that if those wanted were ever arrested in Spain that would constitute “an act of war” is just too silly for words. So when America reneged on its treaty obligations and sentenced a German or a Mexican to death without due process, that was “an act of war”? Come on. Let’s get real. If Spain ever did get their hands on these guys, America would definitely use a lot of arm twisting with the Spanish government behind the scenes, but the notion that they would use or threaten to use military force is just plain silly. The notion that the US would use military force against a European country for anything like this is just too silly for words. Some people need to get real.
Simple American lies and coverup explanations may serve as arguments for those who are already card-carrying members of Bush’s choir but they do not do anything for America’s reputation abroad.
On the 8th of every month, the day of the month Couso was killed, there is a demonstration in front of the American embassy in Madrid demanding justice. The embassy has reinforced its walls and become a fortress even more than it already was.
America is already paying dearly for this foolishness and will continue to pay as long as it persists in thinking it can dominate the world. America behaving like a rogue nation will only accelerate it’s downfall. America has lost foreign students (who bring in a lot of money and subsidise American students), has lost tourists (who spend money on airlines, hotels, restaurants, etc), is losing trade. And all this is partly masked by a weak dollar. It would be worse with a strong dollar.
Anyone who thinks the anti-American sentiment sweeping the world has no effect on America is either deluded or a fool.
Cutting through all the (usual) anti-American bullshit, do you actually have access to any of this proof? You claim there was a documentary shown in Spain clearly showing the US deliberately fired on the place…is there by chance a internet link so we can all take a look? Don’t worry if its in Spanish, thats no problem. The link you posted has zero details…it makes claims that on the surface seem pretty ridiculous. If you have access to some evidence then by all means post it. If not, then don’t wonder why some of us would be skeptical.
Couple of things. 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? I’d think that even if Spain knew that they couldn’t get at the soldiers they would officially protest directly to our government (and probably make a statement at the UN) if we deliberately murdered one of your citizens. Why is ‘Spains attorney general’ objecting? Again, if this is a slam dunk, why is this lone judge acting on his own (thats how it seems to me from here)…why not a concerted effort by your government directly? Your government is no friend to mine after all so it can’t be that they are doing it to stay on Bush’s good side.
That the US would deliberately set out to murder Spanish journalists is an extraordinary accusation…its going to require some extraordinary proofs. You can wag your tongue all you like that being skeptical of your claim is being in Bush’s choir, but unless there is more to this than I’ve read so far there isn’t enough to back this…except to the faithful such as yourself of course. But then, you’d pretty much believe anything that was anti-American, so thats not really saying much.
Coming from someone like you, I take that as a compliment.
I wonder, are all first generation Americans uberpatriots? Ironically enough, without the country you’ve professed so much animosity towards, odds are very good to great you wouldn’t be alive today. Unless of course, you’re a direct descendant of an indigenous Mexican tribe – which, BTW, you’d have better odds of being as opposed to an indigenous American tribe descendant. Surely you can figure out why.
Finally, I am surprised that you’re surprised that a nation at war (and an illegal and inmoral one at that), would be willing to go to any extremes to silence dissenting voices.
After all, what a few more deaths amongsts a few thousand?
Lastly, the Spanish Gov is playing politics. That a surprise to you as well?
Getting ready for bed here but I’ll take a look at the documentary with as much of an open mind as I can. No other proofs or cites? If you have them I’ll read em…I’m trying to keep an open mind here and to be honest I’ve seen no details at all from either side.
All? No idea. I doubt it. Many of us are though, yes. I don’t consider myself an UBERpatriot BTW…but I am a patriot, something that you seem to confuse with being a Bush supporter…as if American=Bush.
As to the rest, I’m a mestizo if you know what that is. We won’t get into relative atrocities between how Spain treated the natives vs how America did here though. We can hammer that out some other time if you wish. I’m not too happy with either nation on this score.
What you are saying is that Spain knows that another country, an ally, has deliberately murdered one of its citizens, but that they are not going to say anything about it because…they are playing politics? Politics with who exactly? Most of the European nations would love you for an official protest. Certainly the Spanish people, if you are representative, would go into fits of joy over one. Who exactly is Spain playing politics with? The US? Why?
I’m sorry but logically I see no reason for Spain to not blast the US if the evidence is that convincing and that overwhelming (leading me logically to question just how air tight it is…as I said, I’ll watch the documentary tomorrow time permitting and give some comments back). Maybe you could go into more detail about WHY Spain would play politics when one of her citizens was supposedly murdered. Is there a huge outcry in Spain of pissed off citizens wailing at their hypocritical, weak and ineffective government for allowing this? Will the present government fall due to its inability to even make an attempt to defend or bring justic to her citizens?
I have zero sympathy for those reporters who put themselves in harms way, in a fucking firefight no less, and demand not to be hurt. If I was a tank commander or a pilot in the middle of a firefight and I scope someone not on my side pointing something in my direction that could be missile launcher. I’m taking him out.
Journalists, especially non-embedded journalists, have no right to jump in the middle of a war and expect to be above danger. Armies sometimes shoot at themselves in the middle of a battle, always have and probably always will. It’s beyond stupid that people want to treat war as some sort of spectator sport.
What’s that got to do with it? The US kidnapped, the Spanish issued a warrant. The US claims international jurisdiction in TWAT and enforces it by illegal means. The Spanish are several moral rungs higher than that and the US are in no position to complain about this.
Read the cites. They were not in a firefight. They fired on a hotel known to contain journalists, journalists assured by the Pentagon of their safety, 1500 metres distant. Too far for the tanks to be engegaged by RPG’s.
I think that shows a serious bias in your comments. Where are you getting this “Europe is hostile to the US” from? I know of no people that I talk to who are hostile to the US. Many may have what I would describe as a sense of bewilderment about your administration (in a ‘what the heck are you doing?’ kind of way) but I know of no one who is hostile.
Challenging the US in matters such as these is not ‘hostile’. If the US administration is allowed to question other countries administration and issue the kind of ‘with us or against us’ kind of rhetoric to other countries then it should not be surprising that other countries question the US administration as well. I don’t feel that you can have it both ways, questioning without being questioned back is not the world today. Hostile is not when someone disagrees with the US administration or questions it, doing so without any evidense to support the questioning or disagreement would be, but not the questioning itself.
I wasn’t asking you whether it had happened in the past, I was asking you to think about the hypothetical question. If the situation were reversed do you believe that the US would accept the decision of another countries military court with no questioning or challenge?
Speaking of this sort of incident however, the US do (from what I read) have something of a bad press as far as friendly fire incidents go;
“US commanders were so worried that their men were shooting at the British because they failed to recognise the Union Jack or other distinguishing military markings that, in an unprecedented move, they asked the British Army to supply vehicles, men and flags to teach their soldiers what their allies looked like.”
<snip>
“A British officer in Basra said: “The Americans can be pretty pumped-up. Sometimes they fire in broad daylight when we are travelling at two miles per hour, shouting that we are British out of the window and waving the Union Jack. If they shoot, our drill is to slam on the brakes and race in the opposite direction.””
I don’t know how many more friendly fire incidents have occurred this year, hopefully it’s not many, but with the awareness that the US is known for friendly fire incidents I suspect more people (for example, the Spanish judge) feel something should be done about it. Of course, the conspiracy theorists remain, maybe I’m too naive but I really don’t think that the US would deliberately kill journalists of any nationality. Yes, the Spanish judge could be accused of ‘point scoring’ but you could also read it that he’s trying to bring some more light to the issue in general. Trying to bring some accountability to the troops, or more importantly their commanders about what goes on on the battlefield.
Just out of curiosity, I may have missed it in the thread so far, but has anyone come across what punishment the tankers or the commander received for this incident?
Slaving, piracy and ‘pirate broadcasting’ (and a handful of others) are crimes under Admiralty Law. Admiralty Law is worldwide. This is long-established. If someone decides to become a slaver he knows he can be tried anywhere. Did these soldiers break some long-established rule? Did they know that Spanish law had dibs on actions by Americans in Iraq?
Or perhaps we are just making things up.
Who the heck made shooting at hotels in wartime in Iraq a crime in every jurisdiction? It is a violation of Iraqi sovereignty in the best European colonial tradition. Those brown people cannot be trusted to run their own affairs after all.
Idea: let the Iraqis decide the law in their own country. For a change.
But apparently they were so untrustworthy of being able to run their own country in the first place that a couple of countries decided they shouldn’t be able to. Afterall, it is a rather serious violation of sovereignty to invade a country in the first place.
Do you envision a situation where the Iraq government (such as it is at the moment) could tell the US armed forces to hand over members of their troops to be tried for crimes in Iraq?
The British don’t seem to have done very well in letting the Iraqis decide what to do in their own country either. Although, there seems to be alot more in that story than perhaps the media is being informed of, it still doesn’t exactly suggest that the Iraqi’s are being allowed to run things their own way.
So, based on all this, who is there to stand up and question the sorts of actions that were pointed out in the OP? To me it doesn’t seem very impartial to have one country decide whether the actions of it’s servicemen are correct. Neither the Spanish or the US are impartial to these decisions and the Iraqis are not currently in a postion to make these decisions either.
If you would have listened to the Democracy Now that I referenced you would know that the tank commander saw someone holding binoculars, aimed his tank then called for confirmation to fire and waited 10 minutes for the order. This was spoken to a Belgian reporter by the tank commander himself, he did not fire in the heat of battle at what he thought was an RPG launcher. He thought it may be an Iraqi forward observer providing intel to the RPG ground forces, but not that the person with the binoculars was an immediate threat.
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?).
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.
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?
AJ was not under the authority of Saudi law while shooting Tomb Raider and did not commit any offense against Saudi citizens. If she had killed Saudi citizens I would support her extradition.
…Why don’t you tell us what percentage of “enemy comabtants” at Guantanemo Bay were captured fighting in Afghanistan? 80%? 50%? More or less?
We do know that many of those in Guantanemo Bay were captured in sweeps like these conducted in Iraq We know that some were turned in to US forces for bounty payments. We know that some of the prisoners were yanked out of bed in front of their families in Pakistan. We know that some were granted their freedoms by Bosnian courts due to lack of evidence, only to be put on a plane and sent to Guantanemo. There are two British businessman locked up at Guantanemo who were seized in Gambia, denied access to the British High Commission, then shipped to Guantanemo via Afghanistan. And worst still, we know that some people ended up in Guantanemo because of simple clerical errors that were too hard to fix:
So to repeat what ** Diogenes the Cynic** said earlier up thread:
“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.”
There are bakers and taxi drivers and people like “half head Bob” locked up with conscripts forced to fight for the Taliban as well as genuine terrorists. There is no evidence to support your contention that most of those in Guantanemo Bay were captured while fighting in Afghanistan, apart from a few assertions from Rumsfeld et al…
…I’ve read through Redfury’s post twice, and would consider it only fair that you point out what parts of his post could be characterised as “anti-American bullshit.” Maybe after a good nights sleep, you may be able to read his post in a different light.
…as to the evidence in the case, if your looking for a smoking gun like a “hidden stash of Weapons of Mass Destruction”, then you are out of luck. Like in most court cases, we are reliant on eye witness testimony, video evidence, and physical evidence. Consider, that originally High Court Judge Santiago Pedraz requested a meeting with the three men in June of this year:
Have a good read-I would say that all sides of the equation are fairly represented by my citations…
As to whether or not the Judge has made the right call in indicting the soldiers, as can be seen by this thread, it is debatable. There is no evidence of pre-meditation, or deliberate targeting of journalists, but there are clear inconsistancies between various testimonies given by US soldiers before and after the official report was released. I think that the Judge, frustrated with attempts to get statements from the soldiers in question, laid down the murder charges in an attempt to force the US to give their statements.
…as to trusting the US Military to investigate itself, well sorry, but any investigation is inherently biased due to the very nature of the way the military is set up. For example, consider the death of Lt. ‘Ala’ `Ali Salih and Sgt. Muhammad Hilal Nahi: http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraq1003/5.htm#_Toc54183744
The US military investigation found:
Now, obviously Hamza could have been lying, and his version of the story could be incorrect. However, there is nothing in the investigation that doesn’t contradict Hamza’s story either. It does nothing for troop morale to punish soldiers for incidents like this: so the benefit of the doubt is given to the soldier, witness statements are not nesercerily taken, and the incident is closed with the standard disclaimer: “acted in accordance with the rules of engagement.”
Remember the outrage from Italy at the aquital of Marine Corps Captain Richard Ashby? Dispite the fact that the plane he was flying was 1700 feet below minimum flying altitude, the reckless flight maneuvering and the deliberate destruction of the flight video by the crew, the crew was not held to account for the deaths of 20 people when their plane flew through the wire supporting a gondola… http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/jan-june99/trial_3-4.html
…or do you remember the investigation into the shooting by US troops during the protests in Falluja? The US troops claimed they came under fire from the crowd, but HRW investigators found no bulletholes, or any co-oberating evidence to support the US claims… (pictures and testimony can be found on the below cite: ) http://www.hrw.org/reports/2003/iraqfalluja/
We have the US soldiers who tried to bring allegations of abuse of prisoners to their superiors, only to be rebuffed. The soldiers had to resort to HRW to get investigations started:
We have the various wedding incidents in both Iraq and Afghanistan, we have the pre-Abu-Gharib-picture-release allegations of torture in prisons across Iraq and Afghanistan. We have the many, many incidents at checkpoints across Iraq. We have complaints from British, Spanish, and other coalition troops that US troops are quick on the trigger finger, and do not do everything possible to identify their target before opening fire. We even have pilots who refuse to drop an American order to drop a bomb because it conflicted with the Australian Rules of engagement…
There is no evidence of pre-meditation, or deliberate targeting of journalists, but there are clear inconsistancies between various testimonies given by US soldiers before and after the official report was released. I think that the Judge, frustrated with attempts to get statements from the soldiers in question, laid down the murder charges in an attempt to force the US to give their statements.