US Soldiers' Spanish Indictment Appealed

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

US Soldiers' Spanish Indictment Appealed

By DANIEL WOOLLS
The Associated Press
Friday, May 18, 2007; 9:59 PM

MADRID, Spain -- Prosecutors on Friday appealed a judge's decision
to charge three U.S. soldiers with homicide in the death of a Spanish
journalist in Iraq, a court official said.

Prosecutors at the National Court said the troops from the U.S. 3rd
Infantry, based in Fort Stewart, Ga., committed no crime when their
tank fired a shell at Baghdad's Palestine Hotel in 2003, killing Jose
Couso, a cameraman for the Spanish television network Telecinco,
and Taras Portsyuk, a Ukrainian cameraman for Reuters.

The prosecutors characterized the attack as an accident of war,
said a court official who spoke on customary condition of
anonymity.

Under Spanish law, investigative magistrates file charges and
prosecutors, who must argue the case at trial, can contest those
charges if they do not feel they can be succesfully tried.

-snip-

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/05/18/AR2007051802002.html

[magellan]

1. Isn't that Spain, Italy and the UK now?

All three countries are prosecuting or, in the case of the UK, have held a coroner's inquest, into the wrongful actions of US soldiers/airmen on the battlefield against foreign civilians and other friendlies. And then there's the US military's prosecution of its own in the murder of Abeer Hamza and her family.

We're just that good at liberating people.

[thunder rising]

2. It is a disgrace

to assume the US Army cannot control their weapons. Any weapon that is fired without outside of the rules of engagement has always been prosecutable. Now that perhaps 10Ks of "accidents of war" have been committed, it's much easier to think that "well shit happens in war." But a tank round is not fired without reason, those clowns knew the target. This non prosecution allows too many other "accidents or war" skate.

[IndianaGreen]

3. The tank crew should be extradited to Spain to face justice

The trial will show that they were under orders to fire on the Palestine Hotel, just as our brave fly boys were under orders to bomb the Al-Jazeera offices in Baghdad, and in Kabul, Afghanistan.

[sanskritwarrior]

6. No thank you

Accidents happen in war time, how about the soldiers in Somalia that killed the aid convoy members who were flying Aideed militia flags? Or what about the time we hit the Chinese embassy in Serbia?.........Accidents happen.

[IndianaGreen]

7. This was no accident. The military knew the press was at the Palestine Hotel

and the video showed the tank crew purposely targeting the hotel. Nothing like Freepers on a tank firing at the non-Faux News press.

The assholes must be extradited to face justice in Spain!

[sanskritwarrior]

9. Again no thank you

I do not believe my fellow soldiers did wrong and I am extremely happy a reactionary like you isn't in charge of these men or any other men in the military.

[IndianaGreen]

10. You obviously didn't see the video

a video that can also be seen in the documentary The Control Room, no matter, just as we have Holocaust deniers, we also have those that deny the crimes the US has committed in Iraq.

How come those "brave" soldiers don't go to Spain, a NATO ally, to stand trial? Perhaps they feel that they too are above the law, just as their criminal Commander-in-Chief.

[sanskritwarrior]

11. Saw it....don't care

I was in Baghdad in 03 there were rounds coming from everywhere, their firing of their main tank gun at what was believed to be an enemy OP was the right decision, Tell you what IG you go back in time to Baghdad 2003 and tell us we were wrong when we acted against perceived threats. My platoon killed 4 civilians, WHY? Because those civilians pointed their rifles at us, it you did that you were dead, we broke no laws, we protected ourselves....... As for Spain, why should they go to Spain for a trial for a crime that OUR CHAIN OF COMMAND has cleared them of. I din't give two shit's what the Spanish Government thinks, they are American soldiers not Spanish ones, ergo only American courts martial apply to them........Now proceed to call me all kinds of names because I disagree with you.

[IndianaGreen]

12. Baghdad 2003, Warsaw 1939, there is not one iota of difference!

The late Pope John Paul II warned the US and the UK that if they went into Iraq, they would do so without God. The Pope was right!

[sanskritwarrior]

13. So you are comparing American soldiers in Iraq

to Nazis? Interesting, you know that's a serious rule violation, I advise you to edit your post.......We are not Nazis, and you are extremely wrong to even compare us to them......

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

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

[sanskritwarrior]

15. So let me get you straight

are you comparing American soldiers to Nazis, yes or no.......

And if the answer is yes, am I a war criminal in your opinion for going to Iraq twice already, and am I going to be a three time war criminal when I go to Iraq in December????

[IndianaGreen]

16. You are the one that is making the comparison, not me!

The Wehrmacht was the German army. It was a professional army. While some of the soldiers were Nazis, the vast majority were not. Now, if we were talking about the SS, it would be something else altogether, for that's were the vast majority of war criminals were found.

As to your going to Iraq, you are in violation of international law, just as Israel is for occupying Palestine, and just as the Iraq was in occupying Kuwait.

As to war crimes, I will point out that it was soldiers that believed in the Geneva Convention that blew the whistle on their comrades that committed war crimes. Killing unarmed civilians, taking hostages, raping young girls and women, using incendiary munitions on a populated area are all war crimes. Just as it happened in Vietnam, war crimes have been committed in Iraq. To deny such an obvious sad fact of this illegal war is to act like as ostrich. The saddest part is that in most cases there has been a whitewash by the US military. It is always the lowest ranked that get prosecuted. I have yet to see the big honchos in the Pentagon be prosecuted for authorizing torture and violations of human rights in Iraq.

As to your own personal situation, I wish you told your CO you were gay and get the hell out of the bad situation your insane Commander-in-Chief has put you in. You are accomplishing nothing by going to Iraq. You are not defending America. You are not punishing those responsible for 9-11. You are not making America safer, on the contrary! You went to Iraq on the basis of lies. Those lies have now been exposed. You now have the same choice that the German and Russian soldiers had towards the end of World War I. They had been lied by their leaders, and had suffered in a long bloody conflict. Many of them chose to return home, and some of them had a hand in toppling the government that had send them to war.

Pope John Paul II warned the US and the UK that in going to Iraq, they would do so without God. The US and the UK are in Iraq without God, just as the Pope warned!

Lancet Report on Iraqi Mortality

Detailed Summary
Background

In March, 2003, military forces, mainly from the USA and the UK, invaded Iraq. We did a survey to compare mortality during the period of 14.6 months before the invasion with the 17.8 months after it.

Methods

A cluster sample survey was undertaken throughout Iraq during September, 2004. 33 clusters of 30 households each were interviewed about household composition, births, and deaths since January, 2002. In those households reporting deaths, the date, cause, and circumstances of violent deaths were recorded. We assessed the relative risk of death associated with the 2003 invasion and occupation by comparing mortality in the 17.8 months after the invasion with the 14.6-month period preceding it.

Findings

The risk of death was estimated to be 2.5-fold (95% CI 1.6-4.2) higher after the invasion when compared with the preinvasion period. Two-thirds of all violent deaths were reported in one cluster in the city of Falluja. If we exclude the Falluja data, the risk of death is 1.5-fold (1.1-2.3) higher after the invasion. We estimate that 98000 more deaths than expected (8000-194000) happened after the invasion outside of Falluja and far more if the outlier Falluja cluster is included. The major causes of death before the invasion were myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accidents, and other chronic disorders whereas after the invasion violence was the primary cause of death. Violent deaths were widespread, reported in 15 of 33 clusters, and were mainly attributed to coalition forces. Most individuals reportedly killed by coalition forces were women and children. The risk of death from violence in the period after the invasion was 58 times higher (95% CI 8.1-419) than in the period before the war.

Interpretation

Making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Violence accounted for most of the excess deaths and air strikes from coalition forces accounted for most violent deaths. We have shown that collection of public-health information is possible even during periods of extreme violence. Our results need further verification and should lead to changes to reduce non-combatant deaths from air strikes.

Source: Les Roberts, Riyadh Lafta, Richard Garfield, Jamal Khudhairi, Gilbert Burnham, summary, “Mortality before and after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: cluster sample survey”, The Lancet, Vol 364, No 9445, 30 October 2004, www.thelancet.com

http://www.epic-usa.org/Default.aspx?tabid=424

[sanskritwarrior]

19. Sorry good President or bad one

I have a job to do and an oath to uphold. Until Congress or a Federal court tells me my oath is invalid as the CinC is a criminal, I must and will obey his orders. Now if you have some sway with Congress or the Supreme Court and you can get the votes or the judges to say Bush is a criminal I and my men will have no problem disobeying his orders. But until then, I have a job to do and I will carry out my orders to the best of my ability. Saying the war is illegal and Bush is a criminal is nice but if you have no resolution from Congress it doesn't matter..........

[IndianaGreen]

20. Your oath is to the Constitution, not to the Commander-in-Chief

You can't use the "I'm following orders" defense to evade your own personal responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, even when that enemy is the government whose orders you follow.

The Nuremberg War Crimes Tribunal and the International Crimes Court at The Hague have seen their share of defendants that pleaded innocence on the basis they were just following orders.

A lot of people died in World War II to defeat the imperial Axis powers, and to bring about a world in which wars of aggression would be no more. Pay particular attention to Article 8:

Nuremberg Trial Proceedings Vol. 1

Charter of the International Military Tribunal

II. JURISDICTION AND GENERAL PRINCIPLES

Article 6.

The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to m Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.

The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:

(a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;

(b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;

(c)CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.

Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.

Article 7.

The official position of defendants, whether as Heads of State or responsible officials in Government Departments, shall not be considered as freeing them from responsibility or mitigating punishment.

Article 8.

The fact that the Defendant acted pursuant to order of his Government or of a superior shall not free him from responsibility, but may be considered in mitigation of punishment if the Tribunal determines that justice so requires.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/imt/proc/imtconst.htm

The day American civilians become afraid of criticizing their military, is the day we become a banana republic. Countries such as Argentina, Chile, and Greece under their respective military juntas, had laws making it illegal for their citizens to criticize their military.

[sanskritwarrior]

21. Well that's all very poetic and all

but in the real world we have orders to follow that are legal. If you can PROVE Bush's orders are illegal and have Congress or the courts agreeing with you, then I am on your side. If however you cannot prove what you claim, I have a job to do. That's not a "just following orders defense", that's a fulfilling my oath which as of today means listening to Bush. Now, if tomorrow Congress gets the votes necessary to impeach bush and remove him from office, you are correct. However we both know that ain't happening, so for now no offense, but I believe I will follow the oath accordingly and carry out my duties thank you very much.

As for criticism, you can do it, but DU can slap you silly for doing it. I am not a nazi, you go just short of calling me one. You are free yo do so, but you are still wrong. It's just that simple.

[Name removed]

17. Deleted message

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

[sanskritwarrior]

18. Huh?

drunk much?

LOL so who did I vote for???

I see the soldier hatred is thick tonight..... thanks another person to alert on.

[whopis01]

8. if they knowingly followed an illegal order then

they should still be held accountable. As should those that gave the illegal order.

[provis99]

4. i'll bet this attack was ordered by Bushco

wasn't there a memo released in Britain in which Bush was talked out of attacking al-Jazeera after the Marine attack on Fallujah? I don't have a specific cite, but Google turns up lots on this memo. Attacking journalists doing unfavorable reports on military activities ain't out of the ballpark.

[IndianaGreen]

5. Bush wanted to bomb Al-Jazeera's headquarters in Qatar

Blair talked him out!