Kidnapped Italian Reporter Freed...Then Shot at by US Forces (Italian Secret Service Agent Killed)

Page 19 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

alchemize

Lifer
Mar 24, 2000
11,486
0
0
Good place for this link

Doubt any of our local conspiratorial america-haters such as "BBond", Jpeyton, arsebanned, Conjur, etc. will bother to read it, or will simply dismiss it as further propaganda and cover up.

"BBond":
Because they fired 300 to 400 rounds at the car.
Boy some bad shots there...300-400 rounds and only 11 hit a car.

It was nothing more than a tragic accident. I'm not sure what sickens me more - the b1tch using it to further her politics, or the scum on this forum doing the same.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
So according to the US account . . . the time lapse between the first warning (light the driver probably didn't see) and fatal shots . . . was a few seconds. To be exact, 36 meters after the light . . . the car crossed a notational line that REQUIRES the gunner to fire warning shots. For the dyscalculic P&N, 80mph (1 sec to respond to light), 40mph (2 sec to respond to light), 20mph (4 sec to respond to light). Take note . . . that's time to SEE the light, RECOGNIZE it's significance, and ACT accordingly.

According to the Italian account (and US account by hearsay) . . . they were traveling at a moderate rate of speed (NOT FAST) but the driver "panicked" and accelerated AFTER shots were fired. Technically, that means BOTH reports could be true in this regard.

The US response to mow them down (regardless of the number of shots fired) occurred moments after the car accelerated which occurred in response to warning shots which occurred in response to the car crossing a line that had ZERO significance for the driver.

It's foolhardy to blame the Italians:
1) What moron would set up a checkpoint/warning system that's dependent on someone seeing a light being flashed at an angle to your vehicle?
Classified parts of the U.S. report found the set-up of the makeshift blockade that night was "less than optimal," and recommended changes to procedures at roadblocks.
2) Maybe it's just me but the driver panicked after being shot at . . . that's an understandable response . . . granted, I would have been inclined to STOP but depending on the circumstances . . . the correct choice would vary.

It's foolhardy to argue the US forces are blameless:
1) See quote above.
2) Shoot first . . . ask questions later . . . is great for self preservation but horrible for the civilians . . .
The report's author said the military should consider extra "non-lethal" devices to slow cars, and called for a review of the practice of the machine-gunner also operating the warning spotlight. Time will tell if the recommendations are effective.
Well, I can answer that one. NO! The recommendations will not be effective considering it's clearly a long stranding problem and there's no real motivation to change the behavior.

This argument is weak . . .
A U.S. inquiry into the March 4 incident, in which the newly freed hostage Giuliana Sgrena and another Italian secret service agent were wounded, has determined that it was a "tragic accident" in which U.S. forces followed correct procedures.
Uh it's tragic that people got killed but the ONLY reason they were killed was BAD procedures. I'm somewhat certain those procedures have been tweaked over the two years since Bush War 2003 started but the only reason "procedures are being reviewed" now is the killing of allied citizenry. That's little consolation for the Iraqis that have died needlessly in the interim.
The U.S. military acknowledged in its report, released late on Saturday, that new safeguard procedures may now be required.

The questions have been posed since April 2003, as the war that overthrew
Saddam Hussein was ending, when seven women and children were shot dead at a roadblock south of Baghdad.

yahoo

Accidents happen . . . but only an idiot or the indifferent tolerate REPEATED . . . "accidents."
 

Cruise51

Senior member
Mar 2, 2005
635
0
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
It has been reported in various news releases that 300 to 400 rounds were fired at the car. But only the windows were shot out.

It tells me that these reports are inaccurate. Let us assume that 5 soldiers were manning the checkpoint, and each emptied an entire clip on Sgrena's car. That would account for approximately 100 rounds of expended ammunition.

To fire off 300 to 400 rounds in the time window that the incident occurred in, it would take nearly 20 soldiers, each emptying their entire clip at the vehicle.

Sorry, not buying it.

10 soldiers, 31 rounds each = 310 rounds
5 soldiers, 31 rounds each = 155 rounds
Unless they have a firm count, it wouldn't be hard to get and inaccurate estimite
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
I repeat . . . does it really friggin' matter if it was 400 bullets versus 100 bullets?!

They received no real warning (at least none that made much difference given the poor setup) before US troops fired live rounds in their direction. The driver had a clear dichotomy . . . drive faster or stop. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong one for the situation b/c the troops transitioned from warning shots to lethal shots within seconds.

 

CaptnKirk

Lifer
Jul 25, 2002
10,053
0
71
10 soldiers, 31 rounds each = 310 rounds
5 soldiers, 31 rounds each = 155 rounds
Unless they have a firm count, it wouldn't be hard to get and inaccurate estimate.


What's the fire rate of the machine gun ?

200 - 600 rounds per minute, that's from 3 to 10 each second,

result . . . lead poisoning.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
1
76
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975

Basically it becomes a case of did the American soldiers respond to aggressively, or did Srgena's car not respond to adequate warnings.

Incorrect. The important questions are as follows:

1) Did the soldiers violate the ROE?
2) Did the Italians correctly inform the US chain of command of the operation and include route details?
2a) If they did, then were the soldiers informed of this?
2a1) If the soldiers knew about the Italian vehicles approaching, was there something that caused them to believe the vehicles were a threat (gets back to #1)

There are three possible areas of fault:
1) The soldiers themselves, who would only be at fault if they failed to follow the ROE.
2) The higher members in the chain of command for failing to communicate.
3) The Italians for either failing to communicate their intentions or for behaving in a manner that made the soldiers believe a threat existed.
 

Czar

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
28,510
0
0
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I repeat . . . does it really friggin' matter if it was 400 bullets versus 100 bullets?!

They received no real warning (at least none that made much difference given the poor setup) before US troops fired live rounds in their direction. The driver had a clear dichotomy . . . drive faster or stop. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong one for the situation b/c the troops transitioned from warning shots to lethal shots within seconds.
did the driver know it was a checkpoint? or could he expect it to be insurgents?
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
1
76
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I repeat . . . does it really friggin' matter if it was 400 bullets versus 100 bullets?!

They received no real warning (at least none that made much difference given the poor setup) before US troops fired live rounds in their direction. The driver had a clear dichotomy . . . drive faster or stop. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong one for the situation b/c the troops transitioned from warning shots to lethal shots within seconds.
did the driver know it was a checkpoint? or could he expect it to be insurgents?

That is part of what makes this just an accident. There have been cases where enemy checkpoints have been set up to ambush. My guess is that the Italians had no clue the checkpoint was going to be there (it was temporary from the document). Not knowing that is was friendly, the driver reacted as if it were an ambush. I'd have to say that the driver is partially at fault as the driver of the vehicle should have been either a member of the Army who was familiar with the ROE for the area or someone who had been trained in then. The Army uses very specific ROEs to prevent this from happening.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
1
76
I think a lot of people are missing something key here. My understanding is that the ambassador was in the back seat. She was there because there was still a great danger to her life from attacks. She had just been rescued from a kidnapping. Based on the fact that she was probably emotional from the kidnapping (nervous or anxious, whatever) and the fact that she was not in the front seat, there is no way she would have remembered how fast the vehicle was going with any accuracy at all. The only people whose testimony should be taken into account are the other occupants who were watching the road, the soldiers, and any witnesses.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I repeat . . . does it really friggin' matter if it was 400 bullets versus 100 bullets?!

They received no real warning (at least none that made much difference given the poor setup) before US troops fired live rounds in their direction. The driver had a clear dichotomy . . . drive faster or stop. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong one for the situation b/c the troops transitioned from warning shots to lethal shots within seconds.
did the driver know it was a checkpoint? or could he expect it to be insurgents?

Well, my POV is that it doesn't matter. If he knew it was a checkpoint, he would be traveling a reasonable rate of speed (<60km/h) but his response to bullets in the darkness could have been the same. The ad hoc "checkpoint" is the primary reason Calipari is dead.

The US military/government has the same kind of affliction that persists in healthcare. We are very bad at saying four things:
1) Expect bad things to happen.
2) Sometimes we "unintentionally" help bad things happen.
3) We rarely change our behavior b/c bad things happen.
4) We often change our behavior (at least for a little while) . . . when other people make a big stink about how often bad things happen . . . . that are preventable.

The Italians/US couldn't agree b/c the US insists on being "blameless" despite that conclusion being specious even in the face of the US investigation alone. The legal term would be contributory negligence . . . bad checkpoint location, bad checkpoint procedures. It was certainly an accident (regardless of what Sgrena rants) . . . but it's ridiculous to believe that Italian communication with the chain of command would have DEFINITELY prevented this accident from occurring.

A good checkpoint location and procedures could protect the troops, meet transit control goals, AND protect the innocent. Sadly, the US military is often decided that two out of three ain't bad.
 

drewshin

Golden Member
Dec 14, 1999
1,464
0
0
Corriere della Sera and La Repubblica said the report argues that a rapid removal of evidence from the site of the shooting made a proper inspection impossible.

doesn't this sound vaguely familiar like the hariri "investigation" by the lebanese government? sounds like a coverup to me by our military, but i'll wait to see what the report by the italians say.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Incorrect. The important questions are as follows:
These questions were already adressed prior in this thread, although I can understand your not coming across them given the number of posts on this topic...and you are an elf.

I repeat . . . does it really friggin' matter if it was 400 bullets versus 100 bullets?!
It is highly relevant, as the number of bullets involved could serve to verify or contradict the story provided by the soldiers at the checkpoint.



 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Incorrect. The important questions are as follows:
These questions were already adressed prior in this thread, although I can understand your not coming across them given the number of posts on this topic...and you are an elf.

I repeat . . . does it really friggin' matter if it was 400 bullets versus 100 bullets?!
It is highly relevant, as the number of bullets involved could serve to verify or contradict the story provided by the soldiers at the checkpoint.
No it doesn't. The soldiers' story is that they "warned" with a light/laser, "warned" with warning shots, and then shot to stop the vehicle. They could easily be "mistaken" about rate of travel b/c the ONLY part they are likely to remember is what happened immediately before "defending" themselves. The action . . . the car accelerated. Of course, if that action was taken in response to the warning shots . . . the BEST source of information would be the DRIVER.

Contributory negligence . . . say it . . . fix it . . . and that's all we need. Instead of . . . not our fault . . . it's never our fault.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
1
76
Originally posted by: Starbuck1975
Incorrect. The important questions are as follows:
These questions were already adressed prior in this thread, although I can understand your not coming across them given the number of posts on this topic...and you are an elf.

I have read the entire thread. The questions I asked are those that are what determines fault/negligence/whatever in this circumstance. The question you asked was ultimately meaningless.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
I have read the entire thread. The questions I asked are those that are what determines fault/negligence/whatever in this circumstance. The question you asked was ultimately meaningless.
Focusing on minutia at this point, but if you have indeed read the entire thread, you will note that myself and others have addressed the fault/negligence scenarios...you provided a good review of those points, but otherwise your comment is misdirected.

Of course, if that action was taken in response to the warning shots . . . the BEST source of information would be the DRIVER.
This is of course assuming that the driver will provide an unbiased account of the situation.

Contributory negligence . . . say it . . . fix it . . . and that's all we need. Instead of . . . not our fault . . . it's never our fault.
Why should we take the blame for something that perhaps is not our fault...it appears that the blame is fairly equally distributed across all parties...or do we simply assume that the driver would take responsibility for his actions in the event that he is partially at fault.

Of course there is the scenario that everyone is telling the truth...the Italians assumed they utilized all of the proper diplomatic channels to ensure their safe passage...the communication flow failed where the information did not reach the soldiers at the checkpoint...the Italians move through the checkpoint assuming that the Americans know who they are...the soldiers respond to the car as a threat...the Italians misinterpret the warnings provided based on the assumption that they have safe passage...and the rest just flows from that.

Hardly an unlikely scenario.

 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
Of course there is the scenario that everyone is telling the truth...the Italians assumed they utilized all of the proper diplomatic channels to ensure their safe passage...the communication flow failed where the information did not reach the soldiers at the checkpoint...the Italians move through the checkpoint assuming that the Americans know who they are...the soldiers respond to the car as a threat...the Italians misinterpret the warnings provided based on the assumption that they have safe passage...and the rest just flows from that.

Hardly an unlikely scenario.
Unfortunately, that scenario is being endorsed by neither party. The US says, "not our fault . . . it's all their fault." The Italians say, "not our fault . . . it's all their fault." The distinction between the POVs is that one party (US) attacked a civilian vehicle on a public road. To the contrary, the other party (Italians) happened to be driving on a public road when they were attacked by US troops in a makeshift checkpoint.

Your scenario is quite likely (despite the various point of facts) but it implicitly lays primary blame on the shooters NOT the shot. IMHO, that's a given considering the circumstances.
 

Starbuck1975

Lifer
Jan 6, 2005
14,698
1,909
126
Your scenario is quite likely (despite the various point of facts) but it implicitly lays primary blame on the shooters NOT the shot. IMHO, that's a given considering the circumstances.
Assuming the soldiers followed the rules of engagement, and assuming that the Italians did use the proper diplomatic channels in clearing their route, the blame in this scenario lies in the American chain of command for not ensuring the message was relayed from the point of origin to the checkpoint.

Given the bureaucracy governing the situation in Iraq, I find this the most likely scenario...the Italians would not be at fault because they did what they were supposed to, and unfortunately, the soldiers at the checkpoint also responded as they were supposed to.

Like many other problems in Iraq, the blame ultimately falls on the chain of command...but I doubt we will see an admission of guilt.
 

imported_Tango

Golden Member
Mar 8, 2005
1,623
0
0
The US army cleared the zone overnight thus preventing any kind of inspection by the italians. The car still hasn't been given to the italians, and already the Us authorities communicated that some kind of inspection procedure on the engine block changed the shape/size of the bullet holes. Not exactly the best behaviour in order to be trusted. The Us are acting like they were trying to hide something, either they are in fact hiding something or acting silly.
 

SarcasticDwarf

Diamond Member
Jun 8, 2001
9,574
1
76
Originally posted by: Tango
The US army cleared the zone overnight thus preventing any kind of inspection by the italians. The car still hasn't been given to the italians, and already the Us authorities communicated that some kind of inspection procedure on the engine block changed the shape/size of the bullet holes. Not exactly the best behaviour in order to be trusted. The Us are acting like they were trying to hide something, either they are in fact hiding something or acting silly.

Cite a source.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I repeat . . . does it really friggin' matter if it was 400 bullets versus 100 bullets?!

They received no real warning (at least none that made much difference given the poor setup) before US troops fired live rounds in their direction. The driver had a clear dichotomy . . . drive faster or stop. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong one for the situation b/c the troops transitioned from warning shots to lethal shots within seconds.
did the driver know it was a checkpoint? or could he expect it to be insurgents?

Well, my POV is that it doesn't matter. If he knew it was a checkpoint, he would be traveling a reasonable rate of speed (<60km/h) but his response to bullets in the darkness could have been the same. The ad hoc "checkpoint" is the primary reason Calipari is dead.

The US military/government has the same kind of affliction that persists in healthcare. We are very bad at saying four things:
1) Expect bad things to happen.
2) Sometimes we "unintentionally" help bad things happen.
3) We rarely change our behavior b/c bad things happen.
4) We often change our behavior (at least for a little while) . . . when other people make a big stink about how often bad things happen . . . . that are preventable.

The Italians/US couldn't agree b/c the US insists on being "blameless" despite that conclusion being specious even in the face of the US investigation alone. The legal term would be contributory negligence . . . bad checkpoint location, bad checkpoint procedures. It was certainly an accident (regardless of what Sgrena rants) . . . but it's ridiculous to believe that Italian communication with the chain of command would have DEFINITELY prevented this accident from occurring.

A good checkpoint location and procedures could protect the troops, meet transit control goals, AND protect the innocent. Sadly, the US military is often decided that two out of three ain't bad.
If there was communication of intelligence between the US and Italians then the Italians should have been informed of the blocking point being in place, since they should have forwarded the route to be used to the US. There is absolutely, if intel was exchanged, no reason why both sides wouldn't have exchanged that information. To me that is the crux of the issue. The soldiers obviously did not know this information and apparently followed procedure for manning a blocking point, so the soldiers cannot be blamed. The ultimate blame is on the intelligence failure, either of the US or the Italians. Which side takes that blame is going to be difficult to ascertain. I'd also have to believe the Italians would be more reluctant than the US to take this blame after making such a massive stink about this ordeal in the first place and the reaction of their populace. They, and the Italian populace and press in general, would lose a huge amount of face by admitting the failure in intel was on their end, far moreso than the US. That's why I suspect the Italians in this. imo, they have more to hide because they have far more to lose.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I repeat . . . does it really friggin' matter if it was 400 bullets versus 100 bullets?!

They received no real warning (at least none that made much difference given the poor setup) before US troops fired live rounds in their direction. The driver had a clear dichotomy . . . drive faster or stop. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong one for the situation b/c the troops transitioned from warning shots to lethal shots within seconds.
did the driver know it was a checkpoint? or could he expect it to be insurgents?

Well, my POV is that it doesn't matter. If he knew it was a checkpoint, he would be traveling a reasonable rate of speed (<60km/h) but his response to bullets in the darkness could have been the same. The ad hoc "checkpoint" is the primary reason Calipari is dead.

The US military/government has the same kind of affliction that persists in healthcare. We are very bad at saying four things:
1) Expect bad things to happen.
2) Sometimes we "unintentionally" help bad things happen.
3) We rarely change our behavior b/c bad things happen.
4) We often change our behavior (at least for a little while) . . . when other people make a big stink about how often bad things happen . . . . that are preventable.

The Italians/US couldn't agree b/c the US insists on being "blameless" despite that conclusion being specious even in the face of the US investigation alone. The legal term would be contributory negligence . . . bad checkpoint location, bad checkpoint procedures. It was certainly an accident (regardless of what Sgrena rants) . . . but it's ridiculous to believe that Italian communication with the chain of command would have DEFINITELY prevented this accident from occurring.

A good checkpoint location and procedures could protect the troops, meet transit control goals, AND protect the innocent. Sadly, the US military is often decided that two out of three ain't bad.
If there was communication of intelligence between the US and Italians then the Italians should have been informed of the blocking point being in place, since they should have forwarded the route to be used to the US. There is absolutely, if intel was exchanged, no reason why both sides wouldn't have exchanged that information. To me that is the crux of the issue. The soldiers obviously did not know this information and apparently followed procedure for manning a blocking point, so the soldiers cannot be blamed. The ultimate blame is on the intelligence failure, either of the US or the Italians. Which side takes that blame is going to be difficult to ascertain. I'd also have to believe the Italians would be more reluctant than the US to take this blame after making such a massive stink about this ordeal in the first place and the reaction of their populace. They, and the Italian populace and press in general, would lose a huge amount of face by admitting the failure in intel was on their end, far moreso than the US. That's why I suspect the Italians in this. imo, they have more to hide because they have far more to lose.

Cite a source.
 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: Tango
The US army cleared the zone overnight thus preventing any kind of inspection by the italians. The car still hasn't been given to the italians, and already the Us authorities communicated that some kind of inspection procedure on the engine block changed the shape/size of the bullet holes. Not exactly the best behaviour in order to be trusted. The Us are acting like they were trying to hide something, either they are in fact hiding something or acting silly.

Cite a source.

Serious Diplomatic Incident between Rome and Washington

By Richard Heuzé from Rome
Le Figaro

Monday 02 May 2005

Manipulation of evidence, concealment of witnesses, flagrant lies: from Rome, the official American report on Nicola Calipari's death seems so far from the truth that Silvio Berlusconi's government, although one of Washington's most enthusiastic allies, refused to co-sign it this weekend. "We cannot, out of respect for Nicola Calipari and our national honor," explained Gianfranco Fini, Vice-President of the Council and Foreign Affairs Minister. Secret agent Nicola Calipari had been sent to Baghdad March 4 to recover journalist Giuliana Sgrena, hostage to Iraqi terrorists. On the road to the airport, an American patrol opened fire on the rented Toyota Corolla, killing Calipari, wounding the journalist and the driver.

An Italian Ambassador and an Italian General participated in the American Army's investigation commission. Their conclusions diverge totally.

For the Pentagon, the 10-man patrol lying in wait at mobile checkpoint 541 under a captain's orders "fully respected the rules of engagement." The patrol, on its first mission in Iraq, located the Toyota driving quickly when it was 125 meters away, and opened fire when it was 42 meters away, after firing three warning shots. As far as the Americans are concerned, the Italians were at fault for failing to warn them at any time of the presence in the car of secret agents and the hostage. A shameless lie, if one believes the official version Italy will publish today. It appears that the American command was aware of Nicola Calipari's mission and that the CIA's airport liaison officer had been informed of the Toyota's return 25 minutes before, by his Italian counterpart. He did not warn the patrol, which opened fire as soon as the vehicle appeared, firing several rounds without giving the customary notice.

This affair is torturing Silvio Berlusconi, who has to inform Parliament this week. He does not want to reconsider the "absolute friendship" with the United States. It will, however, be difficult for him not to come to some conclusions with regard to the presence of 3,300 Italian soldiers in southern Iraq. The Northern League is already calling for "an in-depth consideration of the time to bring our contingent home." The National Alliance is demanding evidence from Washington and enjoins it to communicate the identity of the patrol's members, whose names have been deleted from the investigation report. For its part, and quite out of character, the Communist daily newspaper Il Manifesto, for which Giuliana Sgrena works, praises the government's "courageous gesture" of not co-signing the investigation report.

The Italian justice system pursues its own investigations. The Toyota, brought back to Italy last week, will be the object of in-depth ballistic tests to better understand the dynamics of the shooting. If American soldiers seem to be guilty, the Italian court will indict them for voluntary homicide.

 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Originally posted by: Czar
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I repeat . . . does it really friggin' matter if it was 400 bullets versus 100 bullets?!

They received no real warning (at least none that made much difference given the poor setup) before US troops fired live rounds in their direction. The driver had a clear dichotomy . . . drive faster or stop. Unfortunately, he chose the wrong one for the situation b/c the troops transitioned from warning shots to lethal shots within seconds.
did the driver know it was a checkpoint? or could he expect it to be insurgents?

Well, my POV is that it doesn't matter. If he knew it was a checkpoint, he would be traveling a reasonable rate of speed (<60km/h) but his response to bullets in the darkness could have been the same. The ad hoc "checkpoint" is the primary reason Calipari is dead.

The US military/government has the same kind of affliction that persists in healthcare. We are very bad at saying four things:
1) Expect bad things to happen.
2) Sometimes we "unintentionally" help bad things happen.
3) We rarely change our behavior b/c bad things happen.
4) We often change our behavior (at least for a little while) . . . when other people make a big stink about how often bad things happen . . . . that are preventable.

The Italians/US couldn't agree b/c the US insists on being "blameless" despite that conclusion being specious even in the face of the US investigation alone. The legal term would be contributory negligence . . . bad checkpoint location, bad checkpoint procedures. It was certainly an accident (regardless of what Sgrena rants) . . . but it's ridiculous to believe that Italian communication with the chain of command would have DEFINITELY prevented this accident from occurring.

A good checkpoint location and procedures could protect the troops, meet transit control goals, AND protect the innocent. Sadly, the US military is often decided that two out of three ain't bad.
If there was communication of intelligence between the US and Italians then the Italians should have been informed of the blocking point being in place, since they should have forwarded the route to be used to the US. There is absolutely, if intel was exchanged, no reason why both sides wouldn't have exchanged that information. To me that is the crux of the issue. The soldiers obviously did not know this information and apparently followed procedure for manning a blocking point, so the soldiers cannot be blamed. The ultimate blame is on the intelligence failure, either of the US or the Italians. Which side takes that blame is going to be difficult to ascertain. I'd also have to believe the Italians would be more reluctant than the US to take this blame after making such a massive stink about this ordeal in the first place and the reaction of their populace. They, and the Italian populace and press in general, would lose a huge amount of face by admitting the failure in intel was on their end, far moreso than the US. That's why I suspect the Italians in this. imo, they have more to hide because they have far more to lose.

Cite a source.

I forwarded an opinion.

I am the source.
 
Sep 12, 2004
16,852
59
86
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: Tango
The US army cleared the zone overnight thus preventing any kind of inspection by the italians. The car still hasn't been given to the italians, and already the Us authorities communicated that some kind of inspection procedure on the engine block changed the shape/size of the bullet holes. Not exactly the best behaviour in order to be trusted. The Us are acting like they were trying to hide something, either they are in fact hiding something or acting silly.

Cite a source.

Serious Diplomatic Incident between Rome and Washington

By Richard Heuzé from Rome
Le Figaro

Monday 02 May 2005

Manipulation of evidence, concealment of witnesses, flagrant lies: from Rome, the official American report on Nicola Calipari's death seems so far from the truth that Silvio Berlusconi's government, although one of Washington's most enthusiastic allies, refused to co-sign it this weekend. "We cannot, out of respect for Nicola Calipari and our national honor," explained Gianfranco Fini, Vice-President of the Council and Foreign Affairs Minister. Secret agent Nicola Calipari had been sent to Baghdad March 4 to recover journalist Giuliana Sgrena, hostage to Iraqi terrorists. On the road to the airport, an American patrol opened fire on the rented Toyota Corolla, killing Calipari, wounding the journalist and the driver.

An Italian Ambassador and an Italian General participated in the American Army's investigation commission. Their conclusions diverge totally.

For the Pentagon, the 10-man patrol lying in wait at mobile checkpoint 541 under a captain's orders "fully respected the rules of engagement." The patrol, on its first mission in Iraq, located the Toyota driving quickly when it was 125 meters away, and opened fire when it was 42 meters away, after firing three warning shots. As far as the Americans are concerned, the Italians were at fault for failing to warn them at any time of the presence in the car of secret agents and the hostage. A shameless lie, if one believes the official version Italy will publish today. It appears that the American command was aware of Nicola Calipari's mission and that the CIA's airport liaison officer had been informed of the Toyota's return 25 minutes before, by his Italian counterpart. He did not warn the patrol, which opened fire as soon as the vehicle appeared, firing several rounds without giving the customary notice.

This affair is torturing Silvio Berlusconi, who has to inform Parliament this week. He does not want to reconsider the "absolute friendship" with the United States. It will, however, be difficult for him not to come to some conclusions with regard to the presence of 3,300 Italian soldiers in southern Iraq. The Northern League is already calling for "an in-depth consideration of the time to bring our contingent home." The National Alliance is demanding evidence from Washington and enjoins it to communicate the identity of the patrol's members, whose names have been deleted from the investigation report. For its part, and quite out of character, the Communist daily newspaper Il Manifesto, for which Giuliana Sgrena works, praises the government's "courageous gesture" of not co-signing the investigation report.

The Italian justice system pursues its own investigations. The Toyota, brought back to Italy last week, will be the object of in-depth ballistic tests to better understand the dynamics of the shooting. If American soldiers seem to be guilty, the Italian court will indict them for voluntary homicide.
Interesting how you are quick to jump on the as of yet non-verified opinion of Truthout while quickly discarding the US military findings as a "lie." That speaks volumes.

 

BBond

Diamond Member
Oct 3, 2004
8,363
0
0
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: BBond
Originally posted by: SarcasticDwarf
Originally posted by: Tango
The US army cleared the zone overnight thus preventing any kind of inspection by the italians. The car still hasn't been given to the italians, and already the Us authorities communicated that some kind of inspection procedure on the engine block changed the shape/size of the bullet holes. Not exactly the best behaviour in order to be trusted. The Us are acting like they were trying to hide something, either they are in fact hiding something or acting silly.

Cite a source.

Serious Diplomatic Incident between Rome and Washington

By Richard Heuzé from Rome
Le Figaro

Monday 02 May 2005

Manipulation of evidence, concealment of witnesses, flagrant lies: from Rome, the official American report on Nicola Calipari's death seems so far from the truth that Silvio Berlusconi's government, although one of Washington's most enthusiastic allies, refused to co-sign it this weekend. "We cannot, out of respect for Nicola Calipari and our national honor," explained Gianfranco Fini, Vice-President of the Council and Foreign Affairs Minister. Secret agent Nicola Calipari had been sent to Baghdad March 4 to recover journalist Giuliana Sgrena, hostage to Iraqi terrorists. On the road to the airport, an American patrol opened fire on the rented Toyota Corolla, killing Calipari, wounding the journalist and the driver.

An Italian Ambassador and an Italian General participated in the American Army's investigation commission. Their conclusions diverge totally.

For the Pentagon, the 10-man patrol lying in wait at mobile checkpoint 541 under a captain's orders "fully respected the rules of engagement." The patrol, on its first mission in Iraq, located the Toyota driving quickly when it was 125 meters away, and opened fire when it was 42 meters away, after firing three warning shots. As far as the Americans are concerned, the Italians were at fault for failing to warn them at any time of the presence in the car of secret agents and the hostage. A shameless lie, if one believes the official version Italy will publish today. It appears that the American command was aware of Nicola Calipari's mission and that the CIA's airport liaison officer had been informed of the Toyota's return 25 minutes before, by his Italian counterpart. He did not warn the patrol, which opened fire as soon as the vehicle appeared, firing several rounds without giving the customary notice.

This affair is torturing Silvio Berlusconi, who has to inform Parliament this week. He does not want to reconsider the "absolute friendship" with the United States. It will, however, be difficult for him not to come to some conclusions with regard to the presence of 3,300 Italian soldiers in southern Iraq. The Northern League is already calling for "an in-depth consideration of the time to bring our contingent home." The National Alliance is demanding evidence from Washington and enjoins it to communicate the identity of the patrol's members, whose names have been deleted from the investigation report. For its part, and quite out of character, the Communist daily newspaper Il Manifesto, for which Giuliana Sgrena works, praises the government's "courageous gesture" of not co-signing the investigation report.

The Italian justice system pursues its own investigations. The Toyota, brought back to Italy last week, will be the object of in-depth ballistic tests to better understand the dynamics of the shooting. If American soldiers seem to be guilty, the Italian court will indict them for voluntary homicide.
Interesting how you are quick to jump on the as of yet non-verified opinion of Truthout while quickly discarding the US military findings as a "lie." That speaks volumes.

If you would have taken the time to click on the link you would know that the "opinion" isn't from Truthout. It's from the Italian newspaper, Le Figaro.

Truthout provided translation.