NationStates Jolt Archive

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6562243.stm
US soldier's murder trial begins
The trial of a US soldier charged with the murder of an Italian intelligence agent in Iraq in March 2005 has begun in a Rome court.
The soldier, Mario Lozano of the 69th Infantry Regiment, is not attending the trial, but in Italy the defendant can be tried in absentia.

The agent, Nicola Calipari, was shot dead on his way to Baghdad airport.

Mr Lozano is charged with murder and two counts of attempted murder. He denies the charges.

He was escorting Giuliana Sgrena, an Italian journalist who had just been freed by kidnappers. She was wounded in the incident, along with an Italian secret agent - Andrea Carpani - who was driving the car.

Soon after the trial opened the judge adjourned it for technical reasons until 14 May.

'Kill line'

US soldiers opened fire as the Italians' car approached a roadblock.


DIFFERING ACCOUNTS
US military : Car approaches checkpoint at high speed
Troops attempt to tell driver to stop with arm signals, lights and warning shots
Soldiers shoot into engine
Italian government : No warning signs to motorists about impending checkpoint
Car not speeding and did not accelerate after warning shots
Proper inquiry impossible because vehicles removed and army logs destroyed just after shooting


Calipari, who shielded the journalist during the shooting, was hailed a hero at home, awarded Italy's top bravery award and given a state funeral attended by tens of thousands.

Franco Coppi, representing Calipari's widow, said the fact the American was not in court did not jeopardise the case.

"His absence is his own choice," he told reporters. "It does not represent an obstacle to ascertaining the truth. We are absolutely serene. The evidence gathered is indisputable."

Mr Lozano's lawyer, Alberto Biffani, said his client had no formal knowledge of the trial proceedings.

Lawyer Franco Coppi called that statement "an insult" and accused Mr Lozano of "a form of arrogance".

Mr Lozano's defence team say the incident was caused by the Italians' "lack of caution", adding that they should have had a military escort.


Italy and the US drew very different conclusions over what had happened.

The US military said the vehicle was travelling too fast, alarming soldiers, who feared it was an insurgent attack.

Italian officials claimed the car was travelling at normal speed and accused the US military of failing to signal there was a checkpoint.

Mario Lozano, both countries agree, fired the fatal shots.

He has told newspapers he had little choice but to open fire.

Explaining the rules of an engagement at a roadblock, he said: "You have a warning line, you have a danger line, and you have a kill line."

The soldier said he flashed a spotlight at the vehicle as it approached, then fired warning shots, and then fired at the engine.




If the USA consistently refuses to extradite soldiers I think this sort of thing will become more common (not commenting on this particular case). Not that it'll make much difference to the individual soldiers but I don't think it helps USA-World Relations.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6562243.stm



If the USA consistently refuses to extradite soldiers I think this sort of thing will become more common (not commenting on this particular case). Not that it'll make much difference to the individual soldiers but I don't think it helps USA-World Relations.It will make some difference to the soldiers in that they won't be able to travel to these countries unless they want to go to prison, and in this case the guy won't be able to travel any of the other 24 EU member states. If Italy asks that he be extradited then there wouldn't even be a court appearance as the extradition procedure between EU member states is automatic and circumvents the courts. *nods*

It will make some difference to the soldiers in that they won't be able to travel to these countries unless they want to go to prison, and in this case the guy won't be able to travel any of the other 24 EU member states. If Italy asks that he be extradited then there wouldn't even be a court appearance as the extradition procedure between EU member states is automatic and circumvents the courts. *nods*

Not too sure about that. What happened with Pinochet while he was in Britain? Wasn't it Spain that wanted to try him and Britain refused to hand him over? :confused:

Not too sure about that. What happened with Pinochet while he was in Britain? Wasn't it Spain that wanted to try him and Britain refused to hand him over? :confused:I seem to remember the reason's for Pinochet not being extradited were different. Something to do with the fact that the crime was commited before the extradition treaty came into effect and that at the time that the crime was commited the crime wasn't a crime in both the UK and Spain. Since neither of these issues would cover people killed by American soliders in Iraq I'm not sure there would be a problem.

edit: In the end I think the Home Secretary declared him unfit to stand trial due to medical reasons. Due to how the system works this meant this halted the extradition attempt completely (the wiki says that the law lords voted that he could be extradited) - in that he if wasn't fit to stand trial in the UK then he wouldn't be fit to stand trial in Spain.

Not to mention that there is not a politician in the EU who would stand for that guy not getting his punishment.

The Calipari story touched people, and rightly so. When the Pentagon decided that nothing happened, they didn't make themselves any friends in Europe. So it just wouldn't be good for anyone's career to protect him.

If the USA consistently refuses to extradite soldiers I think this sort of thing will become more common (not commenting on this particular case). Not that it'll make much difference to the individual soldiers but I don't think it helps USA-World Relations.

The problem I have with this whole incident is that If the soldiers manning that spot were so nervous that they fired too soon, how come none of the other cars going through that checkpoint that evening were fired at or had problems stopping.

If the italians were NOT going at a high rate of speed, why did the military single it out?

How on earth can the italian prosecutors tell how fast the car was driving based on examining the car only? Especially when the driver admits he wasn't paying attention to his speed...

It rejected the US suggestion that the automobile driven by Mr Calipari was travelling too fast. The speed "cannot be placed in question", it said.

From: http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200505/s1358450.htm
"The driver of the the automobile was not travelling fast because the airport road was wet, because he knew he was approaching a 90-degree turn and because he was driving with one hand, since he had a portable telephone in the other," the report said."

Geez...obviously the guy that wrote this report has never driven with a taxi driver in any metropolitan city:-)

charges and trials?! what is the world coming to? everyone knows that what you are supposed to do is just kidnap the person and disappear them into a soviet era gulag facility with a sign out front that says "under new management".

If the USA consistently refuses to extradite soldiers I think this sort of thing will become more common (not commenting on this particular case). Not that it'll make much difference to the individual soldiers but I don't think it helps USA-World Relations.

More than the extradition issue, the real problem is that the US military have messed up the evidence, so it is very difficult to ascertain truth.
The italian MP (Carabinieri) investigators claim that 58 shots hit the car: 1 in hit the motor, 57 were aimed at the passengers' compartment.
I think that Lozano is being used by the US military as a convenient scapegoat. His commanding officers, and the US chain of command of Baghdad, carry more responsibility than him.

Fine. Let the Italians play this game if they want to. The fact is, the soldier did everything by the book and was cleared by a review board. The Italians are just pissed that one of their guys FAILED TO STOP AT A CHECKPOINT!

It will make some difference to the soldiers in that they won't be able to travel to these countries unless they want to go to prison

This happens when you're judged guilty of homicide or manslaughter, you know...

I guess he'll have to cross Italy off his list of countries to visit.

As well as the rest of the EU. Now we just need to wait for Rumsfeld's trial in absentia. *Crosses fingers*

I guess he'll have to cross Italy off his list of countries to visit.

The fact is, the soldier did everything by the book and was cleared by a review board.

A very independent one...:rolleyes:

A very independent one...:rolleyes:

The fac remains that he failed to stop for a checkpoint. He decided to drive right through it. That was stupidity on his part. Stupidity that got himself killed. The soldiers followed procedure. Alwell. What do I care? I don't care what Italy does. They do not have jurisdiction in this anyway.

The fac remains that he failed to stop for a checkpoint. He decided to drive right through it. That was stupidity on his part. Stupidity that got himself killed. The soldiers followed procedure. Alwell. What do I care? I don't care what Italy does. They do not have jurisdiction in this anyway.

Not even nearly. Firstly he got shot before he got to the checkpoint. After he crossed the "alert line" the USA says he was shouted at, had lights flashed and warning shots fired before they fired on the car.

But consider this,

"Approximately four seconds had elapsed between the firing of the first round and the last round, and no more than seven seconds from the time the car crossed the Alert Line until it came to a stop," the report says.
7 seconds from crossing the alert line, 4 seconds from the firing of the first round. So about 3 seconds before they started shooting.


US Lt Col Clifford Kent of the 3rd Infantry Division in Baghdad said the checkpoint where the shooting had happened was a temporary set-up.

According to the Associated Press news agency, when asked how easy it would be to see US troops at the checkpoint at night, he said:

"Depending on where it is, that could be difficult... but if you're seeing soldiers in military uniform with military equipment, if you know it's a dangerous area, then... you need to maintain your awareness.



While agreeing on many other points, the Italian version:


emphasises the lack of warning signals - such as signs, bright cones, concertina wire - given to motorists of an impending roadblock

says the vehicle speed was half that reported by the Americans, denies there was any acceleration and describes the time between the warning shots and follow-up fire as "excessively short"

notes that the immediate removal of the vehicles involved, and the destruction of the US soldiers' duty logs, made "objective conclusions" impossible

reports that an Italian military commander was not allowed to visit the scene in the immediate aftermath while US officials were given access.


So it's fair to say that the Checkpoint was only recently put there, hard to see, and that very shortly after the vehicle crossed the "alert line" it got fired upon by one of the US soldiers. Both sides seem to agree on that. At the least to me that suggests reasonable grounds for a fair trial.

If you just take the US's side then what the car did wrong was drive over 50mph along a road and not see a checkpoint, and fail to stop within 7 seconds of being signalled.

linky (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4325253.stm)

I think every checkpoint should record every encounter on video.

I think every checkpoint should record every encounter on video.

But then the issue would be whether or not the US military would cooperate with any investigation. That's the main point of this case/article - not whether the guy is innocent or guilty, but why it appears the US military is continuously giving two fingers to her (remaining) allies.

Also see: huge reluctance to release video of US planes bombing UK convoy in Iraq, an incident that they denied existed on tape and then refused to cooperate with the British judges on - their closest ally in all this.

I think every checkpoint should record every encounter on video.

This I agree with.

But then the issue would be whether or not the US military would cooperate with any investigation. That's the main point of this case/article - not whether the guy is innocent or guilty, but why it appears the US military is continuously giving two fingers to her (remaining) allies.

Also see: huge reluctance to release video of US planes bombing UK convoy in Iraq, an incident that they denied existed on tape and then refused to cooperate with the British judges on - their closest ally in all this.


true - they will resist but if we KNOW they have them because of it being procedure, then it will be more telling if the US military refuses to allow their recording to be used to prove their own case.

I don't expect the military not to put a a fight but having a possibility of accountability might lessen the trigger happy fellas and give some of the rest of us a little piece of mind.

The fac remains that he failed to stop for a checkpoint. He decided to drive right through it. That was stupidity on his part.

1.In a trial, what the defence claims isn't a fact. It is a line of defence. Facts will be ascertained by judges - a thing the US military refused to do.

2.He didn't "drive right through it". The car was shot upon before they reached the checkpoint. Alleged intentions and speculations aren't proof or facts.

3.When even US army officers claim (see above posts) that the checkpoint wasn't a proper checkpoint, but it was somewhat "temporary"; when material evidence and duty logs get manipulated by the fellows of the defendant... well, there's something fishy, and a trial is needed.

This I agree with.

Can you agree with harsh punishments for destroying evidence in SNAFUs like this?

Seems to me that the common US response to embarrassing situations is to hide all the evidence. That's an indication of guilt.

They do not have jurisdiction in this anyway.

How do you know that? Since when did you become the expert in italian law.

Do you even know what jurisdiction means?

How do you know that? Since when did you become the expert in italian law.

Do you even know what jurisdiction means?

Arthais101, for once in your fucking life, shut up.

Yes I do know what jurisdiction is. This was done in a COMBAT ZONE that was being patroled by AMERICAN SOLDIERS under the command of AMERICAN OFFICERS, who take orders from the chain of command which includes the PRESIDENT (regardless of political affliation). The American military has control over its own forces unless there's this thing called a Status Of Forces Agreement (aka SOFA) and that is between the country that their forces are in ( in this case Iraq) and America. Of course, that also depends on what the SOFA states in regards to jurisdiction for the local cops.

Yes I do know what jurisdiction is.

No, no you don't.


This was done in a COMBAT ZONE that was being patroled by AMERICAN SOLDIERS under the command of AMERICAN OFFICERS, who take orders from the chain of command which includes the PRESIDENT (regardless of political affliation). The American military has control over its own forces unless there's this thing called a Status Of Forces Agreement (aka SOFA) and that is between the country that their forces are in ( in this case Iraq) and America. Of course, that also depends on what the SOFA states in regards to jurisdiction for the local cops.


Absolutly none of which means that the soldiers could not violate italian law. IT doesn't matter who has CONTROL of the forces. Italy is a sovereign nation. They can make any law they want. If they make a law that covers acts done to italian citizens during a war, they have jurisdiction.

I don't care who was in CHARGE of the soldiers. Italy is free to regulate that conduct through laws in their own nations.

So no, I don't think you know what jurisdiction means.

No, no you don't.

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I DO AND DO NOT KNOW! I know far more than you are giving me credit for.

Absolutly none of which means that the soldiers could not violate italian law.

Does not matter in this incident because the incident has been closed. It was thoroughly investigated by the proper authorities and wouldn't you know it? Lack of communications and failure to follow procedure resulted in this tragedy.

IT doesn't matter who has CONTROL of the forces. Italy is a sovereign nation. They can make any law they want. If they make a law that covers acts done to italian citizens during a war, they have jurisdiction.

In this case it does matter who controls the forces as military personnel in a combat zone are under AMERICAN COMMAND in Iraq. And that includes foreigners though they are under their own chain of command and rules and procedures.

I honestly do not care what you think is or is not the definition of jurisdiction. This issue has been settled and now the Italians are playing politics. Grow up.

do not bother responding to this. I'm done in this thread.

Does not matter in this incident because the incident has been closed.
Evidently not.

It was thoroughly investigated by the proper authorities and wouldn't you know it? Lack of communications and failure to follow procedure resulted in this tragedy.
Do you really fancy yourself more of an expert in law than the Italian judiciary?

Fact of the matter that they aren't just making shit up. There's a murder trial going on here, and it's built on foundations that seem to be strong enough to warrant proceedings in a European court.

Does not matter in this incident because the incident has been closed. It was thoroughly investigated by the proper authorities and wouldn't you know it? Lack of communications and failure to follow procedure resulted in this tragedy.
Closed? There's a court case going on. Hardly 'closed' at all.


In this case it does matter who controls the forces as military personnel in a combat zone are under AMERICAN COMMAND in Iraq. And that includes foreigners though they are under their own chain of command and rules and procedures.
No, I think you've got that wrong. I believe Arthais is correct in his definition.

I honestly do not care what you think is or is not the definition of jurisdiction. This issue has been settled and now the Italians are playing politics.
"Playing politics" by investigating a highly suspicious death? According to you then, the US tape of planes destroying a UK convoy (which supposedly didn't exist according to the US military), should never have been shown because the US military said it didn't exist and therefore the case was 'closed'.

Were the Brits merely 'playing politics' or were they investigating a highly suspicious death?

May I remind you that both Italy and the UK are your allies in this.

do not bother responding to this. I'm done in this thread.

Your loss really.

Habeas Corpus, anyone?

DO NOT TELL ME WHAT I DO AND DO NOT KNOW! I know far more than you are giving me credit for.

I don't need to tell you. You have demonstrated, time and time again, that you have a fundamental and near total ignorance about how the law works.

Does not matter in this incident because the incident has been closed.

It hasn't been closed to the Italians, obviously.

It was thoroughly investigated by the proper authorities

Apparently in Italian law, the proper authorities is the italian court.


In this case it does matter who controls the forces as military personnel in a combat zone are under AMERICAN COMMAND in Iraq. And that includes foreigners though they are under their own chain of command and rules and procedures.

So what? None of which means that these troops, under american command, did not in fact violate italian law.

I honestly do not care what you think is or is not the definition of jurisdiction.

That's because you don't care about little things called "facts"

This issue has been settled

Apparently not, since there's a trial.

Let me teach you one little lesson, ok? A sovereign state can extend jurisdiction to whatever they want. A sovereign state can make any conduct they want illegal, or legal. A sovereign state can empower its courts to hear any issue they wish it to hear.

America does not get to decide the jurisdiction of the italian courts. America does not get to say "well these are our troops, so you can't have jurisdiction over them". America does not get to dictate the law of another sovereign.

Regardless of what rules America might have for jursidiction, those need not be Italy's rules. The american government/military can not dictate terms to a foreign nation. I don't care whether American law says that these troops are soley under american jurisdiction. Italy is not beholdant to american law. They may extend their own jurisdiction to whatever matters they so choose.

If the italian government sees fit to grant its courts jurisdiction in these matters, then it sees fit to grant its courts jurisidiction in these matters. It doesn't matter what America says. It doesn't matter whether America wants. Italy is a sovereign nation, they may extend jurisdiction over whatever they wish, even the acts of other nation's troops on a battlefield, if it so chooses.

That's what jurisdiction means.

I will also add that truly smart and knowledgeable people are capable of demonstrating their intellect and knowledge through action, leaving little doubt to it. Smart and knowledgeable people rarely need to scream "I AM SMART, DAMN IT!"