<< SWIFT JUSTICE URGED ~ MAIN ~ SILENCE NOTED >>
SPANIARDS IN THE WORKS
Arrest warrants have been issued in Spain for three US soldiers over the deaths in 2003 of a Spanish journalist and Ukrainian cameraman covering the war in Iraq. The Boston Herald’s Jules Crittenden was witness to the incident:
Crittenden, who was within about 100 yards of Gibson’s tank when he fired, said the tankers believed they were firing on an Iraqi forward artillery observer.
”This incident has been investigated by the Pentagon and several media organizations, and no evidence has been produced to suggest this was anything but a tragic accident of war by well-intentioned soldiers who had been in combat for up to 30 hours,’’ Crittenden said.
”The men who were killed accepted the same risk that all of us did who went willingly to Iraq, and unfortunately they paid the full price for their devotion to their professions.’‘
“You can add,” writes Crittenden in an e-mail, “that I consider the persecution of the officers misguided and politically motivated.”
Apparently Spanish law holds that a Spanish court has jurisdiction in cases where a crime has been committed against a Spanish citizen, and this crime is not investigated in the country where it occurs.
As this ‘crime’ clearly was investigated in the country where it occured, the Spanish courts should not, by law, have jurisdiction. That the courts claim they do anyway, supports the idea that this is all just political grandstanding.
I didn’t realise no-fee, no-win ambulance-chasing ‘lawyers’ Slater and Gordon had an office in Spain.
Journos have no protection in a war zone. If you look like you are aiming something at troops, the picture you take may be your last!
The Spanish are unbelievably misguided and are making trouble for themselves with this one. Sadly, there are arseholes in our own country (and others) who will applaud them.
How much are the Spaniards doing these days to bring mass murderers to justice in so many places where the need is great, and the crimes horrendous?“Politically motivated” in Spain? No surprises there.
Those three soldiers will never ever go into Spain on official or personal business. I wonder if the Spanish judge in question wondered what effect this might have on tourism? Lots of US troops from Europe go to Spain—I’m told it’s an excellent vacation.
Posted by The_Real_JeffS on 2005 10 20 at 07:50 AM • permalinkStrange. The Spaniards doing the bidding of muslim extremists.
No, in this case, they’re doing the work of international leftists and anti-American reporters.
Or is that redundant?
Posted by Rob Crawford on 2005 10 20 at 09:09 AM • permalinkThe facts of this case are outrageous. Firstly the shot was fired from about 2 + km away, even using the sights you would not have been able to clearly make out what you were shooting at. That is why most gunners use the Thermal Image sites in built up areas, they don’t get a picture but rather a hazy heat image. A journo with a camera looks like a Milan or AT-3 anti tank guided missile and operator, the sort of threat you would expect to be covering a bridge, such as the one the tank was on when it fired. Being on a bridge in a built up area is about as exposed as tanks get so the crew would have been very edgy, especially after the fatigue of sustained high intensity combat operations for about two and a half weeks. You don’t wait to confirm when you see a potential threat of the type you are expecting. It’s shoot first or die.
The real tragedy of this death is that the journos had a remote kit, they could have set the camera up and operated it remotely from inside. They’re own gung ho recklessness partially cost them their lives. Combat fatigue, complex urban warfare, the fog of war and bad luck were the other contributing factors.
Posted by platey mates on 2005 10 20 at 09:28 AM • permalinkTo paraphrase Andy Jackson: they have made their indictment; now let them enforce it.
What are they going to do? Sail the Spanish Navy up New York harbor? Reject our tourists?
Just another excuse to buy Texas and Ozzie wine…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 20 at 11:40 AM • permalinkWhat are they going to do? Sail the Spanish Navy up New York harbor?
What Spanish Navy? We took care of that in 1898.
Posted by Bruce Rheinstein on 2005 10 20 at 11:59 AM • permalink“You can add,” writes Crittenden in an e-mail, “that I consider the persecution of the officers misguided and politically motivated.”
Combat fatigue, complex urban warfare, the fog of war and bad luck were the other contributing factors.—platey mates
One of the grievances the left has against President Bush is his arrogant rejection of the ICC. To claims by the US that the ICC would be used to make political indictments against US soldiers waging war, proponents argue that there are built in safeguards to ensure this does not happen.
Reasonably, the only safeguards that could be given are those to prevent trials from proceeding or at the very least from verdicts being issued. But could safeguards been created to prevent Spanish (or French, Belgian, German, you name it) judges or interested parties (e.g., leftwing, Greens, Muslims) from bringing frivolous indictments against American soldiers?
NO. So let’s all shut up about America being arrogant about the ICC, shall we?
Posted by wronwright on 2005 10 20 at 01:42 PM • permalink“You can add,” writes Crittenden in an e-mail, “that I consider the persecution of the officers misguided and politically motivated.”
Leave out the “misguided” part and it’s a much more accurate statement. :-(
Posted by Barbara Skolaut on 2005 10 20 at 01:54 PM • permalinkMy first instinct was “We should withdraw every single one of our diplomats from Spain, issue a travel advisory that Americans in Spain are subject to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment in Spain, expel every single Spaniard in the U.S., refuse to issue visas to any Spaniards (including diplomatic visas to replacement U.N. delegates), and announce an appropriation of $100 million in support of Basque independence from Spain.”
Then I calmed down. This is one lunatic judge, and the Spanish government is appealing to a higher court to invalidate the charges.
Posted by Warmongering Lunatic on 2005 10 20 at 02:03 PM • permalinkMaybe we should get the boyos in Boston to start putting their NORAID money towards the ETA…
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 20 at 03:29 PM • permalinkSpanish Judge: NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. Our two weapons are fear and surprise…and ruthless efficiency…. Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency…and an almost fanatical devotion to International Law…. Our *four*...no… *Amongst* our weapons…. Amongst our weaponry…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again.
Posted by Randal Robinson on 2005 10 20 at 03:34 PM • permalinkThe Zapatero government has been under fire recently over the scores of African immigrants that have basically stormed their exclaves in Northern Morocco since the summer, trying to gain asylum in Spain (or elsewhere in the EU later). Far be it from me to go all Lataan here, but it’s interesting that these arrest warrants are only being issued now, over a year after Zapatero won the presidency.
I remember seeing a news story prior to Gulf War II where the americans were breifing journalists. Part of that story that stuck in my memory was the American officer telling the camermen to never point the camera at a tank in combat precisely for the reason described by platey mates.
The Spanish should also be prosecuting Charles Darwin for coming up with the theory that unsuitable members of the species get removed from the gene pool.
Ever wonder why we don’t hear about American or British judges going off and engaging in antics like these? The difference lies in the Roman Law that Spanish, French, and many others around the world use versus the Common Law of the Anglosphere.
The best summary and short critique of the Roman system that I’ve seen comes from Winston Churchill’s (yes, that Churchill) superb History of the English-Speaking Peoples, in volume I of which (“The Birth of Britain”) the great Parliamentarian wrote:
It is a maxim of English law that legal memory begins with the accession of Richard I in 1189. The date was set for a technical reason by a statute of Edward I. It could scarcely have been more appropriately chosen however, for with the close of the reign of Henry II we are on the threshold of a new epoch in the history of English law. With the establishment of a system of royal courts, giving the same justice all over the country, the old diversity of local law was rapidly broken down, and a law common to the whole land and to all men soon took its place. A modern lawyer, transported to the England of Henry’s predecessor, would find himself in strange surroundings; with the system that Henry bequeathed to his son he would feel almost at home. That is the measure of the great King’s achievement. He had laid the foundations of the English Common Law, upon which succeeding generations would build. Changes in the design would arise, but its main outlines were not to be altered.
It was in these fateful and formative years that the English-speaking peoples began to devise methods of determining legal disputes which survive in substance to this day. A man can only be accused of a civil or criminal offence which is clearly defined and known to the law. The judge is an umpire. He adjudicates on such evidence as the parties choose to produce. Witnesses must testify in public and on oath. They are examined and cross-examined, not by the judge, but by the litigants themselves or their legally qualified and privately hired representatives. The truth of their testimony is weighed not by the judge but by twelve good men and true, and it is only when this jury has determined the facts that the judge is empowered to impose sentence, punishment, or penalty according to law.
All might seem very obvious, even a platitude, until one contemplates the alternative system which still dominates a large portion of the world. Under Roman law, and systems derived from it, a trial in those turbulent centuries, and in some countries even to-day, is often an inquisition. The judge makes his own investigation into the civil wrong or the public crime, and such investigation is largely uncontrolled. The suspect can be interrogated in private. He must answer all questions put to him. His right to be represented by a legal adviser is restricted. The witnesses against him can testify in secret and in his absence. And only when these processes have been accomplished is the accusation or charge against him formulated and published. Thus often arises secret intimidation, enforced confessions, torture, and blackmailed pleas of guilty.
These sinister dangers were extinguished from the Common Law of England more than six centuries ago. By the time Henry II’s great-grandson, Edward I had died English criminal and civil procedure had settled into a mould and tradition which in the mass govern the English-speaking peoples to-day. In all claims and disputes, whether they concerned the grazing lands of the Middle West, the oilfields of California, the sheep-runs and gold-mines of Australia, or the territorial rights of the Maoris, these rules have obtained, at any rate in theory, according to the procedure and mode of trial evolved by the English Common Law.
Posted by Michael McNeil (Impearls) on 2005 10 20 at 07:33 PM • permalinkSpaniards. HA! Hey! DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Served in the USAF in Madrid for two years and nearly lost it. 30 years behind the rest of the world and working 3 days a week to catch up. One thing I learned about these guys is they like to talk. It was common to see two spaniards in each other’s faces, really yakking it up. But they can’t back it up. One of those dingdongs thought it would be a good idea to pinch my beautiful gringo wife’s posterior one night in downtown Madrid. I could tell by the look in his eyes when I picked him up and made an impression of his body in the hood of a Citroen, he had no real stomach for a fight. They can talk the talk but can’t walk the walk.
arloman—sure that sounds impressive, but hey, Citroen. You can dent one of those tonka toys with a coffee cup.
Posted by richard mcenroe on 2005 10 20 at 08:02 PM • permalinkEver wonder why we don’t hear about American or British judges going off and engaging in antics like these?
The British are not immune from this type of stupidity. Recall how General Pinochet was arrested in the UK on a warrant issued by a…Spanish judge. It seems to be a European mindset.
One only has to read Geoffrey Booker’s Notebook in the Sunday Telegraph to realised that the Spanish disease infects Britian in equal measure. We are not immune here in Victoria and I reckon our US correspondents could produce many local examples.
Posted by walterplinge on 2005 10 20 at 09:54 PM • permalink#9 Though well intentioned, is incorrect.
Sgt Shawn Gibson, using his view finder, could clearly see a person on a balcony, with binos- talking and pointing.
He made a decision that this person was an Iraqi forward observer, and received permission to engage the target.
Reporters without Borders has investigated this incident at length. The fundamental flaw in their report is that they assume that because the Americans weren’t ‘taking fire’ from that balcony, they had no right to engage the target.
Further, they have characterised US attempts to justify the shelling as self defence as a lie, because they were not being engaged from that location.
Quite clearly RWB misunderstands the role of foward observers.
FO’s coordinate offensive support assets, particularly indirect fire. Destroy them, and you prevent the deployment of that indirect fire asset.
Engaging what you think to be an OP or FO party is as legitmate, one would think, as engaging an Iraqi pointing a RPG at you.
However, engaging the hotel where foreign journalists were known to be is less than ideal.
But that’s simply a result of the fog and friction of war. Charging them with murder is absurd.This kind of stuff is going to result in the US becoming more isolationist soon. Bush is likely to be the most internationalist and multilateralist president for the next fifty years. Nor will a Democrat change this. There were distinct turns toward isolationism in the Dem positions in the last election. In particular trying to use the UN as a cover to cut and run from Iraq, and the Dem assertion that they would defy the WTO over the steel tariffs, were two of them. The latter item, by the way, would have been an explicit violation of actual, existing international law to which the US is committed. It would have been a more serious violation of that law than anything Bush has done.
Posted by Michael Lonie on 2005 10 20 at 10:44 PM • permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages
Members:
Login | Register
| Member List
First they cut and run; now they want to charge those who had the guts to stay? Contemptible.