Spanish judge issues arrest warrant for US troops

by IdiotSavant
Fri Oct 21st, 2005 at 12:59:40 PM EST

From the front page ~ whataboutbob

From No Right Turn - New Zealand's liberal blog.

In April 2003, in an attack widely believed to be deliberate, a US tank fired at media in the Palestine Hotel in Baghdad, killing Spanish journalist Jose Couso and Ukranian cameraman Taras Protsyuk. Today, in a landmark decision, a Spanish judge has issued an arrest warrant for three of the tank's crew on murder and war crimes charges. The charges are possible because Spain claims jurisdiction over the murder of its citizens abroad - something which has enabled them to pursue South American dictators like Augusto Pinochet as well as former members of Argentina's military regime.

They'll never face trial, of course - the US has flatly refused to extradite. Instead, they'll just join the list of Americans who cannot travel outside of their country for fear of arrest. But it is good to see that at least someone is making an effort to hold them to account.


Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password

Display:
The three international arrest warrants were issued by judge Santiago Pedraz of the Audiencia Nacional of Madrid for Thomas Gibson, Captain Philip Wolford e Lieutenant Colonel Philip De Camp.

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.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Wed Oct 19th, 2005 at 05:46:42 PM EST
All three have admitted their responsibility in the crime in both televised and published interviews.

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.

by MarekNYC on Thu Oct 20th, 2005 at 03:43:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There was no battle. If I remember correctly, they just aimed their tank's cannon at the hotel and fired.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 20th, 2005 at 05:22:44 AM EST
[ Parent ]
It was in the middle of the final stages of the battle to take Baghdad. Lots of fighting going on in that area.
by MarekNYC on Thu Oct 20th, 2005 at 02:09:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]
According to Italian reports, the judge's decision to issue a warrant is based partly on an interview in la Nouvel Observateur and televised interviews with the protagonists. Their statements tentatively contradict the US government claim that there were perceived snipers on the roof of the hotel. There is also footage of the tank crossing the bridge, turning and aiming at the hotel, and firing.

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.

by de Gondi (publiobestia aaaatttthotmaildaughtusual) on Fri Oct 21st, 2005 at 01:32:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Spain complained to the US over the death of photographer Juantxu Rodriguez during the invasion of Panama in 1990.

Italy was unable to prosecute an American pilot who killed dozens of people when the tail of his plane severed the cable of a funicular at a ski resort. Apparently American pilots at a US base in Italy amused themselves by flying between the gound and the cable, and the Italian government's protests were ignored.

An armored vehicle ran over two South Korean schoolgirls and the US refused to allow the crew to be prosecuted.

And on and on and on.

If this is what the US military does to US allies, what won't they do to other people, like the Iraqis?

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Oct 19th, 2005 at 05:56:59 PM EST
In many of those cases the US could claim immunity under the status-of-forces agreement with the local government (which means governments should not negotiate agreements giving immunity or allowing the US to refuse to prosecute their own). But they can't claim any such immunity applied at the time in Iraq.  Instead, it's simply the imperial attitude: "we're the boss, and your laws do not apply".

Idiot/Savant
No Right Turn - New Zealand's liberal blog

by IdiotSavant on Wed Oct 19th, 2005 at 06:31:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Which is why I wonder why any country would agree to the standard status of forces agreement with the US any more. It's not like they don't know what is likely to happen.

A man of words and not of deeds is like a garden full of weeds; a man of deeds and not of words is like a garden full of turds — Anonymous
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Oct 20th, 2005 at 05:23:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]