The blogosphere has rightly trumpeted the fact that satellite evidence vindicatedsthe actions of US servicemen who opened fire on Italian reporter Giuliana Sgrena and her escort Nicola Calipari:
A US satellite reportedly recorded a checkpoint shooting in Iraq last month, enabling investigators to reconstruct how fast a car carrying a top Italian intelligence official and a freed hostage was traveling when US troops opened fire.
The report, which aired Thursday on CBS News, said US investigators concluded from the recording that the car was traveling at a speed of more than 60 miles (96 km) per hour.
Giuliana Sgrena has said the car was traveling at a normal speed of about 30 miles an hour when the soldiers opened fired, wounding her and killing Nicola Calipari, the Italian agent who had just secured her release from a month’s captivity.
US soldiers said at the time of the March 4 incident that the car approached at a high rate of speed and that they fired only after it failed to respond to hand signals, flashing bright lights and warning shots.
The conflicting accounts were among a number of differences that have prevented US and Italian authorities from reaching agreement on what happened.
What has not been discussed in enough detail is whether or not the Italian government broke with generally agreed upon protocol when dealing with terrorists and kidnappers- you don’t pay them. It is not simple addle-brained conspiracy-mongering (although this is)to think they did, as all reliable source indicate they did:
The Italian prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi, has promised President George W Bush that he will not pay more ransoms to free hostages in Iraq.
The Italian government has denied newspaper reports that $6m (
Ted Barlow
John, I just went to the Wizbang link, and it doesn’t look like even he believes the satellite story. He notes the difficulty of measuring speed from satellite data.
“It’s worth noting that CBS is the only one reporting the existence of satellite proof of the speed of Sgrena’s car. That story, absent additional proof, appears to be collapsing quickly.”
Other bloggers have noted that (a) the US won’t show Italy the satellite photos and (b) it was a cloudy night when this happend.
Am I reading you wrong, or do you believe that the satellite story is accurate?
Rick
The fact remains that if our armed forces where trigger-happy, nervous in the service types, there would figure to be a large number of shot-up vehicles littering the highway in before the checkpoint.
The fact they opened fire indicates that this particular vehicle made an imprudent (and to the soldiers, threatening under ROA) approach.
So, a blue-on-blue tragedy. And ironically sparing the Red.
Cordially…
rilkefan
Still don’t understand why we won’t let the Italians inspect the car.
Rick
I do believe they did.
Cordially…
stickler
Oh, come on.
What has not been discussed in enough detail is whether or not the Italian government broke with generally agreed upon protocol when dealing with terrorists and kidnappers- you don’t pay them.
What, exactly, was Iran-Contra all about? You may want to ask Maggie Thatcher about it; she apparently was more than a little put off about the Reagan Administration’s payments to Lebanese terrorists.
We’ve paid hostage-takers, and every sentient person on the planet knows it. To get all sanctimonious on one of the few remaining members of the Coalition of the Willing stinks to high heaven.
More than that: as with Abu Ghraib, nobody of any serious responsibility will face any punishment for killing (whoops!) a crack member of an ally’s intelligence service. Sorry! And we won’t let them inspect the car, and we redact the crap out of our report, and the report smells of being rigged, and, and, and.
Barry
Posted by rilkefan:
“The fact remains that if our armed forces where trigger-happy, nervous in the service types, there would figure to be a large number of shot-up vehicles littering the highway in before the checkpoint.”
Until they were removed, of course. Or until the checkpoint was moved to a fresh site.
I’ve seen numerous articles about the risks of checkpoints. If some Iraqis were fired up, it probably wouldn’t have come to our attention.
Rick
The “risks of checkpoints” is precisely why troops would open fire on a fast-approaching vehicle.
And if Iraqis were similarly shot up through error/misunderstanding, we most certainly would have it come to our attention. As in NYT page 1 above-the-fold.
What kind of media are *you* exposed to?
Cordially…
P.S. Stickler–great “working in” of Abu Ghraib, Amerika’s Death Kamp
Kimmitt
Aren’t some of the insurgent groups setting up fake checkpoints, etc.?
Rick
Wouldn’t recommend it on the highway to the airport. Actually, I would: easier to roll these Nazis up when they’re in the open.
Cordially…
ape
I agree JC –
However terrifying and awful it is to see a compatriot, colleague or family member (or indeed, anyone at all) kidnapped, the paying of ransoms must be stopped.
It should be illegal and this should be enforced, despite the harshness this will create.
Subsequent kidnap victims can blame their capture on those who have paid ransoms. They should be able to sue.
The payment of ransoms was a large part of the collapse of the rule of law in Chechnya. Kidnappers must learn that there is no possibility of benefit from their actions outside the propagation of ghastly horror; and their own martyrdom once we catch them.
Kimmitt
Ransoms in kidnappings are a classic common resource problem, cast in a particularly ghastly light.
Rick
Gosh, proof that if an infinite number of apes type at an infinite number of keyboards, one would produce a sensible comment.
This is a banner day.
Cordially…
Kimmitt
Hey, could you do me a favor and every time you’re about to post another semi-rational hate-filled screed directed at me . . . could you hug your kids instead or something? Thanks.
John Cole
Kimmitt- I think he was talking to ape….
Kimmitt
Ah, so I see. Request stands, though.