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.