United States Subverts Justice in Spanish Cameraman's Death ?

[RLENT]

Madrid - In what could be the first legal case to use filtered WikiLeaks documents as evidence, the family of a Spanish cameraman killed in 2003 by a US tank shell during the battle for Baghdad filed a complaint Monday. They seek to open an investigation into whether high-ranking officials here colluded with the US Embassy to stop charges being filed against three American soldiers, including a colonel.

José Couso of Telecinco, the Spanish cameraman, and Taras Protsyuk, a Ukranian cameraman working for Reuters, died April 8, 2003, when a shell fired by an M1 Abraham tank hit the 15th floor of the Palestine Hotel, which scores of foreign journalist were using as a base and Pentagon-approved safe haven. Two other media locations were hit that day, also killing Al Jazeera correspondent Tareq Ayyoub. Four others were injured, leading to broad condemnation and demands to protect reporters.

Couso’s family has been fighting an uphill battle as it presses for criminal charges against the US soldiers. The US and Spain are, after all, close allies, and the US has taken the position that its soldiers are not liable to foreign jurisdictions, particularly when carrying out their duties in war zones. [Rlent Editorial Comment: Pretty funny .... coming from a government who kidnaps and then uses extraordinary renditions on individuals .....]

The case has been dismissed twice at the request of Spanish prosecutors, only to be reopened by the Spanish Supreme Court. Currently, the country’s National Court is awaiting Iraqi entry visas to investigate the involvement of a sergeant, a captain, and a colonel in the incident seven years ago.

What the WikiLeaks documents show

According to the WikiLeaks documents posted by El País newspaper, former US ambassador in Madrid Eduardo Aguirre wrote in May 2007 that “while we are careful to show our respect for the tragic death of Couso and for the independence of the Spanish judicial system, behind the scenes we have fought tooth and nail to make the charges disappear.”

A month later, according to the documents, Mr. Aguirre told former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the Spanish government “has been helpful behind the scenes in getting the case appealed.”

Then in July 2007 another confidential embassy report summarized a lunch meeting between Aguirre and Attorney General Conde-Pumpido in which the Spanish official “said that he continues to do what he can to get the case dismissed, despite public pressure from the family, leftist group, and the press,” according to Aguirre.

The latest complaint from the family, filed at the Attorney General's office, asks that US diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks be used as evidence that Spanish officials conspired to unduly influence prosecutors to dismiss the case. The accused include former Foreign Affairs Minister Miguel Ángel Moratinos, former Justice Minister Juan Fernando López Aguilar, Attorney General Cándido Conde-Pumpido, and National Court Chief Prosecutor Javier Zaragoza.

“The fundamental goal is to stop government meddling,” says Enrique Santiago, the Couso family's lawyer. “The family could have filed this with the courts directly, but it wanted to make sure that the rule of law still exists.” The Attorney General’s Office did not return calls for comment.

US meddling?

“It’s certainly going to increase the pressure on the government to play it straight,” says Reed Brody, a Brussels-based lawyer for Human Rights Watch. “The implication that top Spanish officials did bidding for the US is very damaging and I think even without the lawsuit it may cause them to try to rectify [the situation].”

“Those of us who are pushing the Obama administration to undertake serious investigations were always hoping that Spanish cases would cause the US to act,” Mr. Brody says. “Nobody expects [former Defense Secretary] Donald Rumsfeld in a court in Madrid, but it would be beneficial if these processes led to... answered questions at home.”

The Pentagon has publicly apologized for the deaths but found US troops acted within rules of engagement in the Palestine Hotel attack. US forces trying to capture Baghdad came under heavy sniper and rocket propelled grenade fire that day and intelligence suggested that a “spotter” was directing fire against US troops from the hotel, the US investigation said.

However, multiple journalists' accounts disagreed. Reporters on the scene said there was no fire coming from the hotel and that the location was a known refuge for foreign media. An investigation into the attack led by the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists concluded that while the attack “was not deliberate, it could have been avoided and may have been caused by a breakdown in communication within the US Army chain of command.”

“The most disturbing thing of the revelations," says Brody, "is that the US was bullying other countries, not just Spain, to try to get officials to interfere with the judiciary. The US has built a wall of immunity and impunity for acts related to Iraq and Afghanistan and now it’s trying to get impunity extended abroad."

“It’s the first use of Wikileaks information in a court," he adds, "but I’m pretty sure it won’t be the last. It’s going to change the playing field.”

And even if the collusion complaint doesn’t prosper, few doubt Spanish public opinion will be a lot more vigilant now over the broader Couso case. “Spanish people get upset with interferences on their courts,” Brody said. “Part of this case is to hammer away at that point, that Spain should not be a lackey and should let the courts do its work.”

Original Article:

Relatives of Spanish cameraman killed in Baghdad use WikiLeaks to press for justice

 

[greg334]

Outside of the fact that they were trying to cover up something, there is a lot to be said about journalist in war zones and the entire institutionalize media making any and all journalist out as heroes. I think this illustrates the problem of the right to know, war zones do not operate within the reach of the first amendment, do they?

However if the intent was to harm people who were not supposed to be there anyway, remember it is a war zone, then there is the serious issue that need to be addressed by the president and the soldiers in question and the event they were involved with should be investigated fully with the Spanish but either tried under US law or Iraqi law.

 

[RLENT]

Outside of the fact that they were trying to cover up something, there is a lot to be said about journalist in war zones and the entire institutionalize media making any and all journalist out as heroes.

Who is "they" ?

(A little advice: if you want whatever you write to be easily understood by others try to avoid using indefinite personal pronouns in places where it is not readily apparent who you are referring to ..... remember while you, in your own mind, might well know what you mean, others may not - which is the entire reason to bother communicating with someone else in the first place)

I think this illustrates the problem of the right to know, war zones do not operate within the reach of the first amendment, do they?

Whatever would make you say that ?

However if the intent was to harm people who were not supposed to be there anyway, remember it is a war zone, then there is the serious issue that need to be addressed by the president and the soldiers in question and the event they were involved with should be investigated fully with the Spanish but either tried under US law or Iraqi law.

..... sigh ..... the above is almost indecipherable .....

Wanna try it again .... or should I just get out the Ouija board ?

With respect to the one thing that was readily apparent (trial under US or Iraqi law) - are you willing to apply that premise to the conduct of the US government - so that we no longer use extraordinary renditions (aka kidnapping) or try foreign nationals that are out of country, for violations of US law that occur elsewhere ?

 

[greg334]

Outside of the fact that they, the US, was trying to cover up something, there is a lot to be said about journalist in war zones and the entire institutionalize media making any and all journalist out as heroes.

I think this issue illustrates the problem of the right to know over the safety of the people who are equal to the citizens of the US in areas of conflict where the right to know doesn't really need to be addressed. War zones do not operate within the reach of the first amendment, do they?

However if the intent of the soldiers were to harm people for retaliation or out of frustration, then there is the serious issue that needs to be addressed by the president (AG) and congress to see whether or not a crime was committed with the assistance of the Spanish government in the investigation to further satisfy them. The soldiers in question and the event if protected and covered up respectfully need to be an open matter like other events (which both of us can name a number of them), AND if found to be that there was intent and if charges were to be filed, then it should be either tried under US law or Iraqi law - no other jurisdiction.

That first post was the first draft that for some reason got posted, which wasn't supposed to happen. I wrote it from a lousy iPad through my server, hence was all ******* up. It happened a lot with the three iPads I have had here and I didn't review the post like I normally do, so sue Apple for making a lousy product.

The they referred to the title of the thread - United States Subverts Justice in Spanish Cameraman's Death ? - and it was the subject, they.

 

[jaminjim]

United States Subverts Justice in Spanish Cameraman's Death ?
Real simple answer. No.

They (the Spaniards) want to charge the three soldiers with murder. I don't know nor do I really care what their laws definition of murder is. But the U.S. Military said they didn't commit a crime. If you read the statement from the on scene reporters, the Committee to protect Journalists said "attack on the journalists, while not deliberate, was avoidable". I think if they failed to say anything that, that speaks volumes. Anything in war is avoidable. But it is war, an accidental killing in the heat of battle can and will happen. If nobody gets killed they would call it an argument. Reporters know they were in a war zone and assumed the risk.

To me it is just common sense, for our Diplomats to tell another government that we have investigated the people involved and we are telling you that it was unfortunate but not murder so pound sand.

 

[xiggi]

It's war stuff happens. Soldiers should not have to second guess every move they make. The only way to make sure a person comes out alive is to not go. It is sad the guy was killed but it is just a reality of war.

 

[RLENT]

United States Subverts Justice in Spanish Cameraman's Death ?
Real simple answer. No.

I disagree.

They (the Spaniards) want to charge the three soldiers with murder. I don't know nor do I really care what their laws definition of murder is. But the U.S. Military said they didn't commit a crime.

Well, for starters .... look at what was said by the U.S. Military (Westmoreland even) right after Mai Lai ....

Now fast forward and look what was said initially by the U.S. Military (it didn't happen) in regards to the incident that has come to be known to the world as the "Collateral Murder" video .....

If you read the statement from the on scene reporters, the Committee to protect Journalists said "attack on the journalists, while not deliberate, was avoidable". I think if they failed to say anything that, that speaks volumes.

Agreed, it does .... and while it may be entirely correct, if one has believes in democratic institutions and the rule of law (and not only when it suits us) the country and it's citizens have a right to pursue the matter through their own judicial system - without foreign meddling.

Anything in war is avoidable. But it is war, an accidental killing in the heat of battle can and will happen. If nobody gets killed they would call it an argument. Reporters know they were in a war zone and assumed the risk.

Certainly true - however that they assumed the risk, in no way lessens criminal culpability - if it indeed does exist.

To do so, would be like saying: "Well .... you choose to deliver that load in downtown Detroit and ended up getting mugged ..... and you got what you deserved ....."

To me it is just common sense, for our Diplomats to tell another government that we have investigated the people involved and we are telling you that it was unfortunate but not murder so pound sand.

I really have no problem with our diplomats doing that (provided that it was honestly investigated and crimes are not being covered up) .... however that isn't what they were doing, they were attempting to subvert the civil, democratic institutions of a sovereign nation ....

We would be screaming bloody murder if the situation were reversed.