All three have admitted their responsibility in the crime in both televised and published interviews.
Shortly before this incident the headquarters of Al Jazeera near Hotel Palestine was hit by American fire killing a reporter and wounding another.
US policy is to simply ignore international rogatories concerning criminal conduct by their troops. They never even get to the stage of "refusing to extradite." But then, no nation would.
Not the same thing as guilt. What a court would have to determine is whether their actions were illegal in their context. You'd have to learn whether or not they knew the hotel was a place for journalists, figure out the circumstances of the battle, and what they actually saw before you declare them guilty of a crime.
This is not meant as a criticism of the Spanish arrest warrants, on the contrary everything I read about the US investigation screamed whitewash so it's good to see someone taking this seriously. But there's a big difference between the evidence necessary for an arrest and for a conviction.
According to one interview, the decision to fire came down the chain of command after ten minutes, which would apparently place the order to fire before crossing the bridge. It allegedly was not a snap decision by the tank commander by his own admission.
I thank you for pointing out that the word "crime" may contain an inherent prejudice of guilt. They are of course innocent until proven guilty. And of course the judge has to motivate his decision in issuing the warrants.
