Spanish court issues arrest warrant for three US soldiers

[bemildred]

Madrid- Spain's National Court on Tuesday issued an international arrest warrant for three US soldiers on charges of causing the death of Spanish cameraman Jose Couso during the Iraq conflict in April 2003, judicial sources said. Judge Santiago Pedraz is seeking the extradition of Sergeant Thomas Gibson, Captain Philip Wolford and Lieutenant Colonel Philip de Camp of the third armoured infantry division.

Pedraz also requested information about the possibility to seize property of the US administration in Spain as a guarantee in case the US is ordered to pay damages.

The Couso family's lawyer Leopoldo Torres has requested the three soldiers to pay a million dollars and the US administration to pay the same sum as a cautionary measure.

The soldiers fired or ordered others to fire at the Baghdad hotel where Couso was staying, fatally wounding the cameraman, who worked for the Spanish television station Telecinco.

Raw Story

[RaleighNCDUer]

1. Remember, in the 80s, the outrage against leftist rebels for

the killing of journalists in El Salvador?

Of course, the leftist rebels always denied that it was they who killed the journalists.

We've stopped even pretending it was the other guys who killed them, now. We declared war on the world press so that we could manage the information coming out of Iraq.

I hope these soldiers are not scapegoated for attacking what they were told were legitimate targets. I also hope they can reveal who passed their orders to them - for that is who deserves prosecution.

[Vidar]

2. Good luck to Spain.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

3. what was the cameraman filming?

sounds like they tried to stop something coming out?

[madeline_con]

9. Evidence of U.S. targeting other journalists....

and murdering other civilians.............


http://www.josecouso.info/article.php3?id_article=56

[Barrett808]

4. k & r

[Big_Mike]

5. They fired the tank main gun into the hotel, IIRC

It was caught on tape as well. The only thing that might go their way is that they were taking fire from that area at the time they spotted the camera. AFAICT, the incident is just a tragic accident.

But I do have another question: Would the Spanish court be investigating if the cameraman was hit by an RPG gunner, or would they just have blown it off as bad luck?

I see no difference between the two cases, except that they can identify the US soldiers involved.

[arcos]

6. Those commie anti-American terrorist lover Spaniards! nt

[leesa]

7. If I remember correctly there were quite a few direct and very questionable

hits at jouralists by US forces in the early days. Lot's of journalists killed and wounded.

[NV1962]

16. I'm not sure if you fully realize what you're saying with that comparison

It's slightly odious to compare a side engaging in "asymmetric warfare" -- which I think is a couched form of referring to terrorism -- with regular armed forces from an advanced democracy. If you really, really hold them to the same standard, and "see no difference between the two cases", you must have a very low opinion of rules of engagement.

Moreover, Hotel Palestina was very well-known among area commanders as the place of choice for international journalists.

So, once more: if you really see no difference, you're elevating what is presented as "incompetence" ("tragic accident", yada yada) to that of sovereign indifference.

A very costly position, that.

Point here, though, is not whether the judicial proceeding will actually go someplace. It's very likely to taper off and remain "unresolved" on some dusty docket. The point here is that the people up the chain are on the not-terrorist side, you know: the part where notions such as checks, balances and accountability set them aside from the bad guys.

If you really, really, really don't see the difference, and believe it's a "tragic accident", there's no higher ground, no difference, just "us or them". For me, that's clearly not enough. Just as "democracy" is not about being able to pick one from some preselected options -- as that's something with which Cubans and North Koreans have to make do -- neither is turning a blind eye to egregious misconduct by some members of armed forces an acceptable cost of doing the business of war.

There is a difference. A fundamental one. Terrorists have no alternative but to deny that very difference, to justify their acts of utter barbarism.

I find it truly staggering that you don't see that, really.

Oh, about your hypothetical comparison: if the responsible party is identified, and the incident is not adequately prosecuted by the competent (local) judicial authorities, you bet there'd be an international criminal investigation. No matter where it would lead - even nowhere.

Clearly, the word you're overlooking here is "principle".

Edited to add the following:

Here is a link to a BBC news article that I think is much more apt in reflecting the heart of the matter, even at the tail of the story:

As he issued the international search-and-capture order for the three tank crew members, Judge Santiago Pedraz demanded that prosecutors also investigate whether it was possible to freeze the soldiers' US assets in case of future compensation claims.

The BBC's Danny Wood in Madrid says Spain's justice system is accustomed to taking on controversial international cases.

In 1998, Spain attempted to extradite Chile's former leader, Augusto Pinochet, while he was in London.

The British government turned down that request, and the US authorities are very unlikely to co-operate with this latest international arrest warrant issued by a Spanish judge, our correspondent says.

But four years after the death of Mr Couso, his family have achieved a symbolic victory, he says.

Closure and a sense of justice go hand in hand. As the pathetic case of the revenge killing of Saddam after a mock trial demonstrates with another example of the contrary, the idea and ideal of pursuing justice here, in this case, prevails over "obtaining tangible deliverables" in the short term, even and also when it ends inconclusive in its operation.

[Big_Mike]

17. No, actually I do understand the difference.

However, I would question the situational awareness of a tank crew engaged in combat. They fired at something they saw protruding over the railing in a building. What that building was would not likely have registered, if they even knew in the first place. There are many things those personnel at battalion or brigade operation centers may be aware of which the crewman on the ground has no knowledge. Had the crew fired at a vehicle with PRESS written on the front and sides, with a cameraman visible doing his job, they should be tried and convicted by the US for their mistake. Had it been a hospital or a mosque, and they fired without the orders of the senior ground commander, then they should be on charges for violating the Rules of Engagement. (And yes, you are right, I do have problems with the ROE as I have seen them.)

As an example, there is internet video of some tank crew "punishing" a driver of a vehicle by running it over repeatedly with their tank. That Tank Commander and Driver should be tried and punished for that act. It was arbitrary and capricious. However, had they been engaged in a fight and ran the vehicle over, then I see no reason for any punishment.

As far as my question concerning would they charge the operative who had fired an RPG, my intent was to point out that I haven't seen any European court indict anybody for the murders of those people beheaded, such as Daniel Pearl or those Italians who were killed three years ago or so. I thought one of them had been Spanish, but I could be wrong. My Google-fu is normally strong, but I cannot locate what I had thought I had read. It just seemed wrong that they indict 3 Americans who accidentally killed someone, and ignored the intentional murder of others.

[RaleighNCDUer]

18. See #9, above.

If terrorists deliberately attack journalists they are exciorated in the press. Sometimes, ref Pearl, the terrorists are identified and charges are filed.

This was not a mis-step in the heat of battle. It was a deliberate attack on a specific target whose coordinates were known by the combatants to be a hotel full of journalists.

no excuse.

[madeline_con]

8. More info here....

http://www.josecouso.info/english.php3

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MGD]

12. Wow, that's really interesting. Maybe you shoud move there?

I mean, since you're obviously so unhappy living among the savage Americans and all. :)

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

14. I live in neither but have been to both, and I can tell you this:

I'd choose Spain over the US in a heartbeat.

Your point was?

[brentspeak]

15. Yeah, really

These losers who hate the U.S. so much - but who still here - apparently don't seem to recognize just how stupid they look.

[roody]

11. The soldiers probably do not have a million

dollars between them. Bush should pay.

[ama]

13. War crime?

In Spain this outrage won´t go away,many people believe this was a targeted killing
the journalist was inside his room at the Hotel Palestine, which was the headquarters for the international media, as your commanders knew full well when they gave the order to open fire. I say lets go to trial the Americans can present their defense in a court of law
edit to add:
the reason the Arrest warrent was issued is, ‘the repeated and voluntary lack of cooperation on the part of the United States authorities over the matter’.

we call on the Ministry for Justice to asked the United States Attorney General to ensure the declarations from the three accused.
The US won´t even cooperate with the investigation!!