NationStates Jolt Archive

BBC report Death of Matty Hull (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm) It is unfortunate that the USA has not co-operated with the cornoner's court leaving people in Britain to have increased doubt into the attitude of our allies.

Clearly time for some 'special rendition'

BBC report Death of Matty Hull (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm) It is unfortunate that the USA has not co-operated with the coroner's court leaving people in Britain to have increased doubt into the attitude of our allies.Well, you get the allies you choose.

Well, you get the allies you choose.

We did not choose Bush.

We did not choose Bush.But we chose not to run away screaming.

"The death of a UK soldier when a US pilot fired on his convoy in Iraq was unlawful, a coroner has ruled."

The coroner is not a judge. All he can say is how the person died, not ruling about the law.

"It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."

Circular reasoning.

"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake."

So, the US pilot sought out an allied British convoy to take pot shots at? True, the pilot was obviously careless, but doing it on purpose?

Overall, I think it was a tragic accident. The US might have tried to cover their ass. I especially like the coroner ruling on international law.

But we chose not to run away screaming.

Actually quite a few did....(for example Robin Cook)...

Problem was that we elected that tosser the Rev Smiler.

I imagine that the US and England have an extradition treaty, the question here is will the US extradite one of it's pilots?

I imagine that the US and England have an extradition treaty, the question here is will the US extradite one of it's pilots?No. US military personel are subject to US military law and will under no circumstances be extradited to anyone ever. It's an explicit political decision, and one they've been criticised for on a regular basis for as long as I've been alive.

I imagine that the US and England have an extradition treaty, the question here is will the US extradite one of it's pilots?

I am pretty sure the treaty is one way only.

The US will extradite non-US citizens to the UK but will not allow extradition of an American citizen, but can demand the UK hand over UK citizens.

I remember this being an issue a little while ago, something about a computer hacker IIRC.

"The death of a UK soldier when a US pilot fired on his convoy in Iraq was unlawful, a coroner has ruled."

The coroner is not a judge. All he can say is how the person died, not ruling about the law.

"It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."

Circular reasoning.

"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake."

So, the US pilot sought out an allied British convoy to take pot shots at? True, the pilot was obviously careless, but doing it on purpose?

Overall, I think it was a tragic accident. The US might have tried to cover their ass. I especially like the coroner ruling on international law.

Right. Thats why they call it a Coroners Court...

The purpose of the Coroner is to investigate deaths that are not from natural causes. The Coroner has to find out the cause of death. The process is deeply legal and a part of the legal system. He may not be a judge in the sense of being able to sentence someone but within the Coroners remit he is.

No. US military personel are subject to US military law and will under no circumstances be extradited to anyone ever. It's an explicit political decision, and one they've been criticised for on a regular basis for as long as I've been alive.
Somehow this doesn't suprise me.
I am pretty sure the treaty is one way only.

The US will extradite non-US citizens to the UK but will not allow extradition of an American citizen, but can demand the UK hand over UK citizens.

I remember this being an issue a little while ago, something about a computer hacker IIRC.

Again, not suprised.

I imagine that the US and England have an extradition treaty, the question here is will the US extradite one of it's pilots?

No

No. US military personel are subject to US military law and will under no circumstances be extradited to anyone ever. It's an explicit political decision, and one they've been criticised for on a regular basis for as long as I've been alive.

Bingo

I am pretty sure the treaty is one way only.

The US will extradite non-US citizens to the UK but will not allow extradition of an American citizen, but can demand the UK hand over UK citizens.

I remember this being an issue a little while ago, something about a computer hacker IIRC.

No.

For a UK citizen to be extradited to the US the only thing needed is reasonable cause.

For a US citizen it requires proof of the crime, proof linking the suspect to the crime, etc etc....basically making it quite difficult to extradite.

No.

For a UK citizen to be extradited to the US the only thing needed is reasonable cause.

For a US citizen it requires proof of the crime, proof linking the suspect to the crime, etc etc....basically making it quite difficult to extradite.

Ahh - that was it.

Thank you for the correction :)

Sorry folks.

Think what is more worrying is the lack of cooperation by the US authorities not just issues about extradiction of the individual pilots but importantly the production of information.

They only released video after it had been leaked to the Sun newspaper. Mrs Hull was appealing up to the last date for information which had been blanked out to be released.

Re the coroner my understanding is that he is extremely experienced and has had his court frustrated by the transigence of the American government.

Yes we get the allies we choose. I just wish Americans would learn to see themselves the way their government increasingly make many of us see them.

I can see no mention of an apology by the US military nor the US government although their is reference to a regretable accident. It would be nice to see a formal calling in of the USA ambassador to complain.

Think what is more worrying is the lack of cooperation by the US authorities. They only released video after it had been leaked to the Sun newspaper. Mrs Hull was appealing up to the last date for information which had been blanked out to be released.

Re the coroner my understanding is that he is extremely experienced and has had his court frustrated by the transigence of the American government.

Yes we get the allies we choose. I just wish Americans would learn to see themselves the way their government increasingly make many of us see them.

I can see no mention of an apology by the US military nor the US government although their is reference to a regretable accident.

It appears to be an accident. There's an old saying that infantrymen have about combat pilots - they are blind and dumb when they are below 1000 feet.

Tragic, yes.

Did you know that every mission flown by every US pilot is recorded - both audio, video, and instrumentation? That this is reviewed after every flight?

That if you fuck up like this, it's the end of your career (at the very least)?

At most the pilots are guilty of negligence - and it could be argued that this was negligent homicide (the lowest degree of manslaughter). It remains to be seen if they will be charged with that (as a charge in an official court martial).

The US military also has what they call non-judicial punishment - under Article 15 of the UCMJ. It is likely that they have been punished in this way, which often involves being reduced to a much lower rank, being fined, and other punishments which the unit commander may consider - all without a trial - you're guilty in such cases, and the only thing you can do is either demand a court martial or make a statement in mitigation.

Usually, when you get non-judicial punishment, you know they have you, and it is smart not to ask for the court martial, where the punishment can be far worse (the conviction rate is over 90%).

You can bet that these guys aren't flying aircraft anymore, either. So their bad judgment won't be killing anyone else.

Did you know that every mission flown by every US pilot is recorded - both audio, video, and instrumentation? That this is reviewed after every flight?

The Family of Matty Hull were originally told that no tape existed and when it was found to exist it took considerable pressure to get information released by USA. Other information was kept from the court. The annoyance is at the behaviour and non co-operation of the USA.

BBC Report during Coroner's court (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6321871.stm)

Dont think the pilots names were released to the court or family. Though i think there has been some attempts by British media to track them down. My understanding is these guiys are still flying perhaps being involved in the training of other pilots.

Actually quite a few did....(for example Robin Cook)...

Problem was that we elected that tosser the Rev Smiler.

In truth, however, would either Hague, Major, or Brown, have done any different?

Actually, Hague may have done so, and told Bush to sod off, but then again the utter suitability of Hague for government is a different issue.

I remember this being an issue a little while ago, something about a computer hacker IIRC.

And the "NatWest Three", too.

Right. Thats why they call it a Coroners Court...

The purpose of the Coroner is to investigate deaths that are not from natural causes. The Coroner has to find out the cause of death. The process is deeply legal and a part of the legal system. He may not be a judge in the sense of being able to sentence someone but within the Coroners remit he is.

Here we call it a Coroner Inquiry.

Accidents happen. I doubt it was intentional as this guy is proclaiming without proof.

Here we call it a Coroner Inquiry.

Accidents happen. I doubt it was intentional as this guy is proclaiming without proof.

Please show me at what point the coroner ruled it was intentional?

Just once.

Or perhaps you need to focus on the difference between "intentional" and "unlawful"

Here we call it a Coroner Inquiry.

Accidents happen. I doubt it was intentional as this guy is proclaiming without proof.

From BBC report: "In delivering his verdict, Mr Walker said: "The attack on the convoy amounted to an assault.

"It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."

If there is an issue about of proof then perhaps questions to the American govenment might be appropriate

Here we call it a Coroner Inquiry.

Accidents happen. I doubt it was intentional as this guy is proclaiming without proof.

I daresay it was accidental, and the video itself portrays the contrition and revulsion of the unfortunate US pilots excellently. However, the issue is more the obscurant role played by the US military authorities throughout the affair, and whatever they sought to gain through protecting troops who were, to all intents and purposes, guilty of nothing.

For it to be criminal, you must have intent to do it. It cannot be an accident

What?

No, seriously, WHAT? That's the most bullshit and factually untrue statement I've heard today.

"criminally negligent homicide"
"reckless driving"
"depraved indifference"



Here he is saying that it was not a case of a honest mistake. That means he believes that it was intentional.

No, "not a case of a honest mistake" can ALSO mean that it was:

a) negligent
b) reckless

Seriously, do you honestly and truly believe that every crime, EVERY SINGLE CRIME has a mens rea of intent?

Are you nuts?

Let me ask you a question. You are speeding. You get a speeding ticket. Does it matter whether or not you INTENDED to speed? Can you not be ticketed if you were unaware of the fact that you were speeding and thus didn't intend to do so?

Seriously....wow. No, I mean....no, I have no other words than "wow". That's just.....

Please show me at what point the coroner ruled it was intentional?

Just once.

The attack on the convoy amounted to an assault.

"It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."

For it to be criminal, you must have intent to do it. It cannot be an accident

I don't think this was a case of honest mistake."

Here he is saying that it was not a case of a honest mistake. That means he believes that it was intentional.

Oh give it up Arthais. He said it was not a mistake. For something not to be a mistake it is intentional.

Yes it was negligence BUT negligence is not criminal. He is saying this is criminal.

Yes it was negligence BUT negligence is not criminal. He is saying this is criminal.

Several thousands doctors now in jail for medical negligence all around the world prove you wrong on that first statement.

Oh give it up Arthais. He said it was not a mistake. For something not to be a mistake it is intentional.

Yes it was negligence BUT negligence is not criminal. He is saying this is criminal.

If this is the position being taken in the States then the States should challenge the coroner at the same time revealing the information which was withheld.

There may well be different rules of law in different countries but I suspect a British coroner is more likely to understand British law then you Cornelieu.

BBC report of families reaction (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6458567.stm) please see this for the families reaction and more from the coroner.

Oh give it up Arthais. He said it was not a mistake. For something not to be a mistake it is intentional.

Yes it was negligence BUT negligence is not criminal. He is saying this is criminal.

um...negligence can be criminal.

In this case the pilots ignoring the orange markings carried on the vehicles designating friendlies.

Of course the real negligence was the lack of training those ANG pilots were given with regards to operating in a coalition.

Several thousands doctors now in jail for medical negligence all around the world prove you wrong on that first statement.

Malpractice Lawsuits here normally don't send people to jail. They just make the victims rich but was it a legitament malpractice suit though is another question.

Several thousands doctors now in jail for medical negligence all around the world prove you wrong on that first statement.

Negligence isn't something that international law covers.

It's why the US has a military justice system, a military investigative service, and even such unfair things as non-judicial punishment with no trial.

It's why the US military records and reviews every bit of data from every attack aircraft in flight - they've got everything the plane was doing, where it was, when, what controls the pilot was using, video, audio, and it's all recorded.

And it's all reviewed after every flight.

Oh give it up Arthais. He said it was not a mistake. For something not to be a mistake it is intentional.

No, he did not say it was not a mistake. He said it was criminal. A mistake can still be criminal.

Yes it was negligence BUT negligence is not criminal. He is saying this is criminal.

criminally negligent homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide)

Malpractice Lawsuits here normally don't send people to jail. They just make the victims rich but was it a legitament malpractice suit though is another question.

I would be vastly surprised if, in the united states, malpractice lawsuits sent anyone to jail EVER, at all.

A lawsuit is a civil claim, not a criminal one. Civil claims do not ever result in jail. Criminal acts do.

A CIVIL negligence LAWSUIT can not, ever, result in jail time. One can not be sent to jail for a civil claim.

A CRIMINAL MALPRACTICE claim can. That is what he was talking about. Not civil malpractice lawsuits.

My god you're so over your head here you can't even get your terms right.

Homicide is the key word there.

no "negligent" is the key word here.

But go ahead, define "homicide" for me.

No, he did not say it was not a mistake. He said it was criminal. A mistake can still be criminal.



criminally negligent homicide (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide)

Homicide is the key word there.

From ABC News reporting the coroner (http://www.abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=2956621)"

The attack on the convoy amounted to an assault," Walker said. "It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it, and in that respect it was criminal.

Walker also said "I don't think this was a case of honest mistake. There is no evidence the pilots were acting in self-defense."

The Coroner has proof of an attack -an Assualt. There was a clear attmpt to harm with likely hood of death. This is not an accident
He has been shown no legal justification for that attack
Including no proof of self defense

Malpractice Lawsuits here normally don't send people to jail. They just make the victims rich but was it a legitament malpractice suit though is another question.

In your country, lad. And if the victim of the malpractice is dead, I think even in the US the charged faces a prison's sentence.

The fact that "negligence" is not covered by international law, perhaps due to the lack of a legal frame regarding multinational allied armed forces operating together, is a thing that should be fixed, don't you think?

The pilots were US soldiers, but the deceased was from the UK, spiky issue regarding legal jurisdiction there, indeed. If any of you, and I am talking about both countries involved, lack an agreement or treaty regarding that, then you should for future engagements.

What's the matter corny? Figure out that homicide doesn't mean what you think it means?

Oh it means what I think it means.

You know what....I don't think you do. so go on, tell me what it means. And tell me why an accidental act can't be homicide.

go on, define homicide for me.

Just that in this case, it was 100% accidential. Because of that, there will not be a trial for it.


And answer me this. If someone does something "negligently", does that mean he did it on purpose, or not on purpose?

If one does something "negligently" does that mean he intended to do it, or did not intend to do it?

What's the matter corny? Figure out that homicide doesn't mean what you think it means?

Oh it means what I think it means. Just that in this case, it was 100% accidential. Because of that, there will not be a trial for it.

-snip-

I already provided the link for negligent homicide. Who are you showing these to? I know what they mean, and know why they prove me right.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manslaughter

WHOOPS!!! I guess this cannot be considered Negligent Homicide if you go by that definition.

never said it could. In fact, neither did the corner. I believe he used the word "assault". However it does go to show that your little claim of "it's not criminal unless you intended to do it" is sheer bullshit.

You ready to admit you were wrong on that one yet? I got a list about 5 things deep that I'm waiting on that particular admission from you. Most of them about legal claims, it seems. I won't hold my breath.

Still waiting for your definition of homicide as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negligent_homicide

WHOOPS!!! I guess this cannot be considered Negligent Homicide if you go by that definition.

No. US military personel are subject to US military law and will under no circumstances be extradited to anyone ever. not even if its about war crimes?

This pilot is not about War crimes I know.. but I want to know if the Never-Extradite-US-citizens-rule applies to War Crimes too.

BBC report Death of Matty Hull (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm) It is unfortunate that the USA has not co-operated with the cornoner's court leaving people in Britain to have increased doubt into the attitude of our allies.

And then the assistant deputy coroner [can you get any lower in the hierarchy?] goes on to expound upon what military tactics he thinks should have been used...

"I believe that the full facts have not yet come to light," said the Oxford assistant deputy coroner.

The US pilots should have flown lower to confirm identities before opening fire, he added.

There are lot of people that just can't get over the idea that friendly fire mishaps occur and that they aren't due to negligence.

There are lot of people that just can't get over the idea that friendly fire mishaps occur and that they aren't due to negligence.

And yet, sometimes surely, it is, right?

WHOOPS!!! I guess this cannot be considered Negligent Homicide if you go by that definition.

I dont think this is the issue.

The coroner has said this was an assault that it was criminal.
The coroner's ability to conduct a proper inquest was obstructed by the USA.
This obstruction made the pain for Matty Hull's family worse

As the USA military have not co-operated with the inquest it seems hard to beleive if they are unwilling or unable to defend the actions of their people in court how others can imagine they can.

Rather than get involved in questions about the definition of negligent homicide perhaps it would help if you could give your view on the lack of co-operation by the USA officials.

And then the assistant deputy coroner [can you get any lower in the hierarchy?] goes on to expound upon what military tactics he thinks should have been used...

There are lot of people that just can't get over the idea that friendly fire mishaps occur and that they aren't due to negligence.

And if head flown lower to confirm the idents and it did turn out to be unfriendlies, we would be minus a pilot or two right now.

And then the assistant deputy coroner [can you get any lower in the hierarchy?] goes on to expound upon what military tactics he thinks should have been used...

There are lot of people that just can't get over the idea that friendly fire mishaps occur and that they aren't due to negligence.

Like I said earlier....

These Air National Guard pilots had not been trained in recognising friendlies. They also ignored the Orange markings on the vehicles.

2003...that far north...was it common for the bad guys to use military vehicles like the British were using? I think no. Why did the pilots not confirm with a eyeball? Why did the 'ground controllers' say there were no friendlies in that area?

Why is it that when we engage with military action along side the Americans we end up losing personal from American friendly fire? Why are there no American deaths from British friendly fire?

And yet, sometimes surely, it is, right?

What you can't get over is that the US investigated the event, and that's not good enough for you. For some reason, everything the US does demands an international investigation.

And yet, sometimes surely, it is, right?

Won't deny that some of them are. In this case though, it was purely accidental.

Won't deny that some of them are. In this case though, it was purely accidental.

and yet once again you miss the point absolutely and entirely that a negligent act is, by definition, accidental. Now what you're TRYING to claim, it seems, is that this was a non negligent accident. Now I ask you, how do you know that?

STILL waiting for your definition of homicide.

What you can't get over is that the US investigated the event, and that's not good enough for you. For some reason, everything the US does demands an international investigation.

You'll find that alot on here when it involves accidents dealing with the US military but bring up accidents done by other nations, they shrug it off.

What you can't get over is that the US investigated the event, and that's not good enough for you. For some reason, everything the US does demands an international investigation.

What I cannot get over is the arrogance of Americans assuming that their legal system is superior to others. Should we only hold enquiries if our soldiers are killed by non-americans. Should this be the case for the whole planet.. You are suggesting that we do not investigate the deaths of our military if an American might be involved :headbang: ???????????????

Who needs enemies when you have friends like this!!!

There are lot of people that just can't get over the idea that friendly fire mishaps occur and that they aren't due to negligence.that is not the bottom line.

The real question for US is: "Do we trust their Legal system?"..

after all.. we keep demanding our allies to trust our Legal system.

Was there a trial? Does not appear so as this did not warrent one apparently.

actually the trial is exactly the thing they're trying to get.

that is not the bottom line.

The real question for US is: "Do we trust their Legal system?"..

after all.. we keep demanding our allies to trust our Legal system.

Was there a trial? Does not appear so as this did not warrent one apparently.

And if head flown lower to confirm the idents and it did turn out to be unfriendlies, we would be minus a pilot or two right now.

so better to just kill them and find out if they were enemy or ally later?

not even if its about war crimes?

This pilot is not about War crimes I know.. but I want to know if the Never-Extradite-US-citizens-rule applies to War Crimes too.

Considering that George W. threatened to take every USAmerican that might ever hbe forced to appear in the war cirme court in The Hague out of there with military action if necessary, I very much doubt they'd extradite anyone, not even a war criminal.

They must have concrete proof that there was criminal intent to kill the brit and there isn't one.

You keep talking about this "criminal intent" thing like you know what it means.

Is it still your contention that a crime is only committed when a death results and someone intended to kill that person?

Are you STILL trying to push that one?

Shit happens in war. Deal with it.

So, again, it's better to shoot at a target and have it turn out to be an ally than investigate first and have it turn out to be an enemy?

I say, let them fly low and investigate first. If they get shot down well...shit happens in a war. Deal with it.

STILL waiting for that definition of homicide.

You'll find that alot on here when it involves accidents dealing with the US military but bring up accidents done by other nations, they shrug it off.

Well, how many other accidents do you actually hear about? Most yanks tend not to know what is happening among the troops of other nations, so a stink isn't necessarily raised.

There have been a number of very shady incidents among Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan, but frankly, when you start a thread on such things, most people don't know squat about it, and just go 'meh'...and turn back to US-centric issues.

That isn't the fault alone of the non-USians here. You yanks love to talk about yourselves too.

Was there a trial? Does not appear so as this did not warrent one apparently.cannot be any trials, if the War-Party systematically wipes their asses with all the Extradition requests (from the UK and the other "allies")

actually the trial is exactly the thing they're trying to get.

There should not even be a trial for an accident such as this. There is absolutely no reason for one.

They must have concrete proof that there was criminal intent to kill the brit and there isn't one.

so better to just kill them and find out if they were enemy or ally later?

Shit happens in war. Deal with it.

That isn't the fault alone of the non-USians here. You yanks love to talk about yourselves too.

I'm not a yank. I hate the yankees. I wish they burn in hell.

Shit happens in war. Deal with it.

And when that shit happens, you find out if it happened for the right or wrong reasons, hopefully to ensure that that shit doesn't happen again.

cannot be any trials, if the War-Party systematically wipes their asses with all the Extradition requests (from the UK and the other "allies")

HAHA!! Funny as hell since that deals with civilians unless you can point out where it states military personnel as well.

You know, I notice something. The more people challenge corny's claims the angrier and more frothy at the mouth he gets, which leads him to spew out MORE bullshit, or repeat the same bullshit again.

Which again, still doesn't get backed up, and he gets angrier. More bullshit, more claims of unsubstantiation, more anger.

It finally gets to the point where he has not said a coherent fact in pages, and then when he has the multitudes of posters laughing their asses off at the pure drivel produced and challenging to back up a single piece of it, he disappears, for hours, or days.

Then comes back, saying he "went to the city" or something and resumes, in some apparent hope that somehow we will have forgetten the original challenges, still lying there in text.

Anyone wanna take a poll on corny's next disappearance? I'm guessing 45 minutes.

And I'll repeat a question someone stated earlier, as nobody wants to answer it, why do we end up with all of these British deaths at US hands yet no US deaths at British hands?

Well, you get the allies you choose.

Profound:rolleyes:

Self-preservation deals with this issue. Better to shoot and ask questions later than ask questions and wind up dead when you are in a complex combat zone.

so it's better for our soldiers to kill allies than those soldiers to be killed by enemies?

Look at it from the pilot's perspective. Do you want to fly lower to confirm something before firing if that means you die?



Self-preservation deals with this issue. Better to shoot and ask questions later than ask questions and wind up dead when you are in a complex combat zone.

And that sums up the attitude of the US military, yet when the US is acccused of being gung ho they get all upset...........

Oh grow up and laugh abit. I was using humor in case you did not realize :rolleyes:

I hate them and I hope they burn in hell.

You know, I suggest you look up the definition of the word "humor".

It's actually conveniently VERY close to "homicide", for which I am also still waiting for a definition from you.

Hey Neesika, go read corny's statements starting at page 2. Your draw will drop in sheer shock probably as much as mine.

I'm not a yank. I hate the yankees. I wish they burn in hell.

Whatever corny...you'll have to accept that I am using 'yank' to blanket-label all people living in the US...and not try to wiggle away with your narrower definition.

There should not even be a trial for an accident such as this. There is absolutely no reason for one.
Sorry a man died-a british soildier- and several of his comrades wehre seriously injured and you say that it's not the antter for a trial. We needed to know how he'd died-and now we know. He was killed by 2 incompetent US pilets who didn't know what the hell they wehre doing. Lets run over the facts here.

The British where nowehre near the sight the planes where supposed to attack
They wehre displaying the correct identification
they did not fire on the planes
the piol;ets had been told that they where in area.

But they still decided to attack, thinking that the obvious orange idents where, get this, rocket launchers. Then, dispite the British troops sending off ID flares they attacked again. As a result the British forces lost several good soilders and one very talented NCO. Becuase of US incompetence and negligence.

Then the US tried to obscure the everdence, depriveing there vicims familly the chance of finding put what atcaully happened. And this isn't the first time thats happened either. You've done it time and time again. Either up your training to the stadnard of British training or do somehting. I don't agree that the piolets should be tried and imprisioned, but the US needs to work out a way of stopping killing their allies.

To our American friends and allies can you answer the following questions:

Should the American government co-operated fully with the British Coroners court?

Do you understand why many people in Britain are upset that the USA government did not co-operate despite a personal appeal from the widow to President Bush?

Is it right that the pilot whio the media have identified was promoted?

Is it right the pilots are not being allowed to defend themselves and the USA airforce's reputations?

So, again, it's better to shoot at a target and have it turn out to be an ally than investigate first and have it turn out to be an enemy?

Look at it from the pilot's perspective. Do you want to fly lower to confirm something before firing if that means you die?

I say, let them fly low and investigate first. If they get shot down well...shit happens in a war. Deal with it.

Self-preservation deals with this issue. Better to shoot and ask questions later than ask questions and wind up dead when you are in a complex combat zone.

Whatever corny...you'll have to accept that I am using 'yank' to blanket-label all people living in the US...and not try to wiggle away with your narrower definition.

Oh grow up and laugh abit. I was using humor in case you did not realize :rolleyes:

"The death of a UK soldier when a US pilot fired on his convoy in Iraq was unlawful, a coroner has ruled."

The coroner is not a judge. All he can say is how the person died, not ruling about the law.

"It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."

Circular reasoning.

"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake."

So, the US pilot sought out an allied British convoy to take pot shots at? True, the pilot was obviously careless, but doing it on purpose?

Overall, I think it was a tragic accident. The US might have tried to cover their ass. I especially like the coroner ruling on international law.
Ditto.
He may have seen too many movies.
Which bit of international law did you like best and why:confused:

so it's better for our soldiers to kill allies than those soldiers to be killed by enemies?

You are still not looking it from their point of view. I doubt you ever will. Pilots want to come home alive.

Oh grow up and laugh abit. I was using humor in case you did not realize :rolleyes:

Humour is also about reception.

You don't get to simply declare yourself funny, and have it be so.

But don't worry, I am laughing at you.

There should not even be a trial for an accident such as this. There is absolutely no reason for one.
Sorry a man died-a british soildier- and several of his comrades wehre seriously injured and you say that it's not the antter for a trial. We needed to know how he'd died-and now we know. He was killed by 2 incompetent US pilets who didn't know what the hell they wehre doing. Lets run over the facts here.

The British where nowehre near the sight the planes where supposed to attack
They wehre displaying the correct identification
they did not fire on the planes
the piol;ets had been told that they where in area.

But they still decided to attack, thinking that the obvious orange idents where, get this, rocket launchers. Then, dispite the British troops sending off ID flares they attacked again. As a result the British forces lost several good soilders and one very talented NCO. Becuase of US incompetence and negligence.

Then the US tried to obscure the everdence, depriveing there vicims familly the chance of finding put what atcaully happened. And this isn't the first time thats happened either. You've done it time and time again. Either up your training to the stadnard of British training or do somehting. I don't agree that the piolets should be tried and imprisioned, but the US needs to work out a way of stopping killing their allies.

You are still not looking it from their point of view. I doubt you ever will. Pilots want to come home alive.

As do police officers. As do firefighters. Nonetheless, no one is above investigation simply because the desire to preserve one's own life is a fairly universal concept.

To our American friends and allies can you answer the following questions:

Should the American government co-operated fully with the British Coroners court?

Accidents happen in war. So my answer is no. We are not obligated to do so.

Do you understand why many people in Britain are upset that the USA government did not co-operate despite a personal appeal from the widow to President Bush?

Yea but tough shit. We are not obligated to cooperate fully as we are not bound by British Law. This was an accident under our laws and thus not criminal. Have a problem, take it up with Congress to pass laws to make it the same here as it is in Britain.

Is it right that the pilot whio the media have identified was promoted?

News to me.

Is it right the pilots are not being allowed to defend themselves and the USA airforce's reputations?

Do they want to?

Here we call it a Coroner Inquiry.

Accidents happen. I doubt it was intentional as this guy is proclaiming without proof.

Oh wow.

So if I accidentally cause the death of someone, I can escape punishment? W00T! Toss out manslaughter, boys!

Wicked! I'm going to go driving at night with sunglasses on!

Accidents happen in war. So my answer is no. We are not obligated to do so.



Yea but tough shit. We are not obligated to cooperate fully as we are not bound by British Law. This was an accident under our laws and thus not criminal. Have a problem, take it up with Congress to pass laws to make it the same here as it is in Britain.



News to me.



Do they want to?


No your not. But as a responsible ally do you not think it would be in your best interest to do so?

Heres the problem.

Brits - Fully release the evidence and prove it was an accident, as you are saying.

US - But we are not obliged to do so, so we won't.

Brits - Why not? Your supposed to be our friends arn't you? What are you hiding?

US - ummmmm.........

Indeed and this was investigated.

When? Where? By whom? Gotta link?

If this was investigated why arn't we being told the results?

As do police officers. As do firefighters. Nonetheless, no one is above investigation simply because the desire to preserve one's own life is a fairly universal concept.

Indeed and this was investigated.

Pilots want to come home alive.

As did, I am sure, the man who this pilot killed.

Because it was a USAF matter. They dealt with it.

And the british seem to think they dealt with it insufficiently. That's the entire point of the article. Have you not been keeping up?

I also find it interesting how the USAF could adequatly investigate the death of someone without his body.

Because it was a USAF matter. They dealt with it.

Answer the question. Why arn't we being told the results? It was our man that died, at least the family are entitled to know

Oh wow.

So if I accidentally cause the death of someone, I can escape punishment? W00T! Toss out manslaughter, boys!

Wicked! I'm going to go driving at night with sunglasses on!

Oh, it gets better, keep going.

And the british seem to think they dealt with it insufficiently. That's the entire point of the article. Have you not been keeping up?

I also find it interesting how the USAF could adequatly investigate the death of someone without his body.

Or without speaking the British Milliatry/witnesses on the ground.

When? Where? By whom? Gotta link?

If this was investigated why arn't we being told the results?

Because it was a USAF matter. They dealt with it.

Or without speaking the British Milliatry/witnesses on the ground.

Yeah, funny that.

"we investigated this matter thoroughly"

"but...how? You don't have the body, and you didn't talk to any of the witnesses."

"it was investigated thoroughly"

"well if you didn't examine the body, and you didn't talk to the witnesses, what the hell did you do?"

"can't tell you that, sorry."

Oh, it gets better, keep going.

Hmmm, not sure if I should...I think Corny's already filled today's quota of vitamin stupid.

To our American friends and allies can you answer the following questions:

Should the American government co-operated fully with the British Coroners court?

Do you understand why many people in Britain are upset that the USA government did not co-operate despite a personal appeal from the widow to President Bush?

Is it right that the pilot whio the media have identified was promoted?

Is it right the pilots are not being allowed to defend themselves and the USA airforce's reputations?
Trollish post.

Trollish post.

why's that? Because he suggests that the US military isn't 100% perfect? I find his questions to be very relevant.

Trollish post.

Certainly not. All reasonable questions which need to be answered, not just for the family, but for all British people.

Because it was a USAF matter. They dealt with it.

It was a USAF error....again.

It was an accident. Its been investigated by the Friendly Fire review Board. They labeled it as an accident.

are you still trying to pretend that an accident can not be a criminal act?

Moreover, the whole point of this thread is that it is not believed that the review board conducted an adequate investigation. In fact, due to them not examining the body, and not interviewing any witnesses, I can not conclude that any such examination would be adequate.

Because it was a USAF matter. They dealt with it.

Matty Hull was a Lance Corporal of Horse in the Blues and Royals this is not an United States Airforce unit.

I really wonder why we co-operate with the USA legal system. We cannot have faith in the USA investigation because this information has not been shared.

Why not answer then?

I try not to feed the trolls:rolleyes:

It was an accident. Its been investigated by the Friendly Fire review Board. They labeled it as an accident.

Investigated how? Published where? Who did they question? How did they investigate?

If this was your son / brother / father you'd want them answered. So why not? Whats wrong with showing a little compassion if your so innocent? Why not prove yourselves innocent?

It was an accident. Its been investigated by the Friendly Fire review Board. They labeled it as an accident.

You listened to that tape...

There have been too many 'accedents' like this latly-about 40 British personell (That I know of) have been killed by American freindly fire, out of around 200 deaths. Thats a huge percentage. Adn theeres probably mroe that I don't recollect.

So what are they going to do about it. Say 'oh it was an accident no need to cahnge proceedure, its not our lads who are dying.' And why didn't they tell the British millitary, and why did they refuse to supply us with the tapes?

Trollish post.

Why not answer then?

Answer the question. Why arn't we being told the results? It was our man that died, at least the family are entitled to know

It was an accident. Its been investigated by the Friendly Fire review Board. They labeled it as an accident.

Why not answer then?

I said, I try not to feed the trolls......

Because it was a USAF matter. They dealt with it.

The pilots were Air National Guards....not USAF. Can you at least get one fact straight?

Malpractice Lawsuits here normally don't send people to jail. They just make the victims rich but was it a legitament malpractice suit though is another question.

You DO know that you can sue in malpractice AND the state can also pursue criminal charges if warranted, right?

Pursuing the matter in civil court does not preclude criminal proceedings. And visa versa.

But at this point, have you just given up this weak line of argument, choosing instead of focus on 'we investigated it, story over, nanoo nanoo'?

I said, I try not to feed the trolls......

You might want to know that simply labelling someone a troll, when their posts do not actually support this application, is actually deemed to be flaming on this board.

You don't just get to yell 'troll' any time you feel like it.

Why can't the Brits hit U.S. forces? Maybe we shoot them down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2877349.stm)before they get a chance? Maybe they just aren't as good at Air-Ground as we are?

I think you'll find its because the RAF doesn't go along with Cornys idea of "shooty first ask questions later", you know, having a sense of responsibilty?

Shooting before you know what your shooting at doesn't make you good at Air-Ground, it just makes you blind and / or stupid.

I try not to feed the trolls:rolleyes:

In my opinion it wasn't a trolling post.

damn thesew time-slips are getting on my nerves!

I said, I try not to feed the trolls......

and has been pointed out, nothing trollish in this post at all, all very reasonable questions.

Like I said earlier....

These Air National Guard pilots had not been trained in recognising friendlies. They also ignored the Orange markings on the vehicles.

2003...that far north...was it common for the bad guys to use military vehicles like the British were using? I think no. Why did the pilots not confirm with a eyeball? Why did the 'ground controllers' say there were no friendlies in that area?

Why is it that when we engage with military action along side the Americans we end up losing personal from American friendly fire? Why are there no American deaths from British friendly fire?
The assistant deputy coroner did say one thing that was valid. He said that we don't have all the facts. The fact that the U.S. exonerated the pilots is enough for me to recognize that either the British unit was acting contrary to standard procedures, or that there were other mitigating factors.

Why can't the Brits hit U.S. forces? Maybe we shoot them down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2877349.stm)before they get a chance? Maybe they just aren't as good at Air-Ground as we are?

It was an accident. Its been investigated by the Friendly Fire review Board. They labeled it as an accident.

And our guys labeled it as unlawful death.
Sure you might know how that translates..into English.

That is indeed true.

Yep, the US wouldn't let us have them.

Same for me.

Please tell me how an investigation that didn't inform the British millitary, conducted in secret, without viewing the body or the witnesses, that then witheld everdence and results can be deemedvalid.


Possible.
Or maybe we pay attention to the markings and check that they arn't freindlys? Or maybe its becuase our training is better and we don't haev the TA fly planes in hostile areas.

Its a dead issue as far as the US military is concerned.

So then, does that mean you are willing to admit that your earlier statements were wrong?

The assistant deputy coroner did say one thing that was valid. He said that we don't have all the facts.

That is indeed true.

The fact that the U.S. exonerated the pilots is enough for me to recognize that either the British unit was acting contrary to standard procedures, or that there were other mitigating factors.

Same for me.

Why can't the Brits hit U.S. forces? Maybe we shoot them down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2877349.stm)before they get a chance? Maybe they just aren't as good at Air-Ground as we are?

Possible.

The assistant deputy coroner did say one thing that was valid. He said that we don't have all the facts. The fact that the U.S. exonerated the pilots is enough for me to recognize that either the British unit was acting contrary to standard procedures, or that there were other mitigating factors.

Why can't the Brits hit U.S. forces? Maybe we shoot them down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2877349.stm)before they get a chance? Maybe they just aren't as good at Air-Ground as we are?

Maybe they are just not as incompetent as US personnel

I imagine that the US and England have an extradition treaty, the question here is will the US extradite one of it's pilots?

For what reason? lots of people die in war, some by mistake, and many inocent, thats war *shrug*

So wait, just so I'm clear, let me get this entirely straight.

People like corny here are willing to dismiss the coroner's report because he "doesn't have all the fact" and at the same time stand by a military decision that was based on incomplete evidence?

Does anyone else see this as lunacy gone mad?

For what reason? lots of people die in war, some by mistake, and many inocent, thats war *shrug*

and when their deaths were a result of criminal negligence, then it is a crime. And criminals deserve punishment.

The pilots were Air National Guards....not USAF. Can you at least get one fact straight?

They are still under the pervue of the USAF as these are A-10s and they are used by the USAF. Across the runway from my dad's old base was the Air National Guard's 171st Air Refueling Wing. They are also under the United States Air Force as well.

and has been pointed out, nothing trollish in this post at all, all very reasonable questions.

You just don't get it do you ?

You DO know that you can sue in malpractice AND the state can also pursue criminal charges if warranted, right?

Yes.

Pursuing the matter in civil court does not preclude criminal proceedings. And visa versa.

Indeed.

But at this point, have you just given up this weak line of argument, choosing instead of focus on 'we investigated it, story over, nanoo nanoo'?

Its a dead issue as far as the US military is concerned.

Yes.



Indeed.



Its a dead issue as far as the US military is concerned.

Oh, you are the spokesman for the us military are you.

:D :D :D

So wait, just so I'm clear, let me get this entirely straight.

People like corny here are willing to dismiss the coroner's report because he "doesn't have all the fact" and at the same time stand by a military decision that was based on incomplete evidence?

Does anyone else see this as lunacy gone mad?

They will also the state the coroner "doesn't have all the facts", then defend their government for with holding the facts!!

The assistant deputy coroner did say one thing that was valid. He said that we don't have all the facts. The fact that the U.S. exonerated the pilots is enough for me to recognize that either the British unit was acting contrary to standard procedures, or that there were other mitigating factors.

Why can't the Brits hit U.S. forces? Maybe we shoot them down (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/2877349.stm)before they get a chance? Maybe they just aren't as good at Air-Ground as we are?

And we still won't until the DoD releases the censored documents.

So you fully believe everything and agree to everything your government says. Thats a neat way of abrogating your responsibilities. However the fact is that the incident involved non Americans. Under our laws any death outside of natural causes is investigated. So for someone to say that Dept X said all is ok is not good enough in a court..not even a coroners court. It also goes against every aspect of western jurisprudence. Even if Dept X is a UK government org.

I know you (for whatever reason) are trying to wind people up with your statement that this is now the fault of the Brits. For what its worth the Brits notified all who required it that they would be patrolling that area. What if the Friendly Fire Board is a rubber stamp? Makes the entire idea of an investigation pretty pointless doesn't it? Of course things like that (cover ups) never happen do they? Of course not.

As for your last comment...its simple...we don't go around shooting up everything and anything that moves.

You just don't get it do you ?

Take it to moderation if you really think it's trolling.

Otherwise, cease what is becoming trolling on your own part.

You just don't get it do you ?

no, and considering your entire contribution to this thread has been

trollish post
I don't feed trolls
You just don't get it do you?

I'd posit that, in fact, you're the one who doesn't "get it"

from Global Security avoiding friendly fire (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030407-afpn02.htm)

This article involves a LT Colonel from the
190th Fighter Squadron of the Idaho Air National Guard explaining using bionoculars to check out who is friend and who is foe. The 190th Fighter Squadron is the uniot responsible for the shooting. This article was conducted within weeks of the killing of Matty Hull.

Except that, under the UCMJ, this was not criminal and the review board backs that up.

And under British law, it is.

I also question the validity of the findings of the review board based on the fact that they are based on incomplete evidence.

Except that, under the UCMJ, this was not criminal and the review board backs that up.

Ok, it was a British soldier died and he does not come under the UCMJ, same as your Airmen don't come under British law. So I'll ask AGAIN Corny, read it carefully this time so you can think of an answer,

If the pilots are innocent of any wrongdoing and this was accidental, WHY not release all the evidence? Even though you are not obliged to do so, when a close ally asks this very small thing of you, WHY NOT?

Oh of course I'm not. Just that the review board has labeled this an accident and that is good enough for me.

why is it, I question, that a review board making a ruling based on incomplete information is "good enough for you" but the coroner's findings you dismiss because he has incomplete information?

Information, I will note, that is only incomplete because the US military won't give it to him.

and when their deaths were a result of criminal negligence, then it is a crime. And criminals deserve punishment.

Except that, under the UCMJ, this was not criminal and the review board backs that up.

Oh of course I'm not. Just that the review board has labeled this an accident and that is good enough for me.

Strangely the British public don't regard your opinion as worth anything, sure you are fairly used to that though...

Oh, you are the spokesman for the us military are you.

:D :D :D

Oh of course I'm not. Just that the review board has labeled this an accident and that is good enough for me.

And we are not beholden to British Law so that ends that.

And yet, we do have an extradition treaty with them.....

Prove it. :D

Considering the body was sitting on a slab in the coroner's office and never reviewed by the review board in question, I feel fairly confident to say that they didn't have all the evidence.

They are still under the pervue of the USAF as these are A-10s and they are used by the USAF. Across the runway from my dad's old base was the Air National Guard's 171st Air Refueling Wing. They are also under the United States Air Force as well.

The ANG is a seperate component of the USAF.

Here...read some history. Not that I expect you grok this but think logistics.

http://www.ang.af.mil/history/Forging.asp

And we are not beholden to British Law so that ends that.



Prove it. :D

We are not beholden to your accident review board, so we'll think and say
what we like then, yeah?

Truth and Justice my arse

Because it deals with American Pilots and thus with American Military Justice and not British Military Justice.

and yet a british citizen was killed. Which does give britain the right to conduct a trial, and if the soldier in question does not wish to attend, it can be held in absentia.

Just because the AMERICAN MILITARY doesn't think it a crime, the british government is in no obligation to honor that agreement, and are free to try this pilot if they see fit, whether or not he decides to attent his own trial.

And under British law, it is.

And we are not beholden to British Law so that ends that.

I also question the validity of the findings of the review board based on the fact that they are based on incomplete evidence.

Prove it. :D

Because it deals with American Pilots and thus with American Military Justice and not British Military Justice.

The victim was BRITISH, therefore it does involve BRITISH justice. Are you listening yet?

because this is a military issue dealing with American Pilots who fall under American Military Law. We are not beholden to British Law and thus I do not care what the coroner actually says. We have had an investigation by the proper authorities of the US of A and their conclusions were that it was an accident. That is good enough for me.

and it was also a matter of a british citizen, which means that britain is free to conduct THEIR OWN investigation, and decide from there.

They may not be able to arrest the pilot, but they can convict him, and rule him a fugitive in absentia.

because this is a military issue dealing with American Pilots who fall under American Military Law. We are not beholden to British Law and thus I do not care what the coroner actually says. We have had an investigation by the proper authorities of the US of A and their conclusions were that it was an accident. That is good enough for me.

Your not going to listen are you? Keep repeating yourself, your winning our argument for us. :D

If the pilots are innocent of any wrongdoing and this was accidental, WHY not release all the evidence? Even though you are not obliged to do so, when a close ally asks this very small thing of you, WHY NOT?

Because it deals with American Pilots and thus with American Military Justice and not British Military Justice.

You might want to know that simply labelling someone a troll, when their posts do not actually support this application, is actually deemed to be flaming on this board.

You don't just get to yell 'troll' any time you feel like it.

You might think that I might but I don't. Therefore you do not think as I do> As such, what you deem flaming (on this board {tart} ) and what I deem as flaming is different.
Get it :upyours:

Oh yes, a British soldier died unlawfully here and all you can think about is whether a post is flam:rolleyes: ing .
Sure his truck was flaming :gundge:

You might think that I might but I don't. Therefore you do not think as I do> As such, what you deem flaming (on this board {tart} ) and what I deem as flaming is different.
Get it :upyours:

Oh yes, a British soldier died unlawfully here and all you can think about is whether a post is flam:rolleyes: ing .
Sure his truck was flaming :gundge:

oh I see.

You're a moron.

from Global Security avoiding friendly fire (http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/news/iraq/2003/iraq-030407-afpn02.htm)

This article involves a LT Colonel from the
190th Fighter Squadron of the Idaho Air National Guard explaining using bionoculars to check out who is friend and who is foe. The 190th Fighter Squadron is the uniot responsible for the shooting. This article was conducted within weeks of the killing of Matty Hull.

Intersting .... A fighter sqn flying Warthogs...hope they don't run into any Migs! ;)

However the fact is that the guy is talking about integrated arms within American units...even after all these years of NATO combined exercises it still gets fucked up when other nations troops are involved.

why is it, I question, that a review board making a ruling based on incomplete information is "good enough for you" but the coroner's findings you dismiss because he has incomplete information?

because this is a military issue dealing with American Pilots who fall under American Military Law. We are not beholden to British Law and thus I do not care what the coroner actually says. We have had an investigation by the proper authorities of the US of A and their conclusions were that it was an accident. That is good enough for me.

because this is a British issue dealing with British soldiers who fall under British Law. We are not beholden to American Military Law and thus I do not care what the USMJ actually says. We have had an investigation by the proper authorities of the UKand their conclusions were that it was not an accident. That is good enough for me.

See how that works? Now trying proving some points and answering questions instead of repeating yourself ad nauseam

because this is a military issue dealing with American Pilots who fall under American Military Law. We are not beholden to British Law and thus I do not care what the coroner actually says. We have had an investigation by the proper authorities of the US of A and their conclusions were that it was an accident.

Ok can we apply that to the people held in Guantanemo Bay as well most of them are subjects of other countries and have never set foot in USA so should not be subject to U.S. of A. law.

I am not so concerned about whether you care about the British Coroner I am concerned whether you as an American Citizen beleive your government should co-operate with its allies.

This is an issue involving the death of a British soldier - you seem to be saying that the death of an ally is of no consequence as long as no US citizen has to face any consequences.

You see to the minds of people like Corny allies are expendable and are most likely dirty liberals to boot...so for him its a win win. No yanks killed....a dirty Euro liberal however did...oh what's it matter...no one cares nor will notice...

because this is a military issue dealing with American Pilots who fall under American Military Law. We are not beholden to British Law and thus I do not care what the coroner actually says. We have had an investigation by the proper authorities of the US of A and their conclusions were that it was an accident. That is good enough for me.

This is an issue involving the death of a British soldier - you seem to be saying that the death of an ally is of no consequence as long as no US citizen has to face any consequences.

Ok can we apply that to the people held in Guantanemo Bay as well most of them are subjects of other countries and have never set foot in USA so should not be subject to U.S. of A. law.

You know what, this is a very good point. Corny seems very caught up on the fact that it's a matter of US law because the pilot was american (funny me I thought that it mattered what state the victim was in because under the theory of criminal law, it is the state against the defendant, for the alleged crimes that harmed the state, so it would make sense that the appropriate venue be Britain, since it was Britain that was harmed by the loss of their citizen...but I digress).

So if it's a matter of american law because he's an american, and specifically american military law because he's in the american military, I'm SURE corny will be quite willing to admit that all the non US citizens in guantanamo bay be returned to their home countries for whatever criminal proceedings their home country sees fit.

After all, if the death of someone caused by an american is a matter for america, then surely other criminal matters done by...say...someone from saudi arabia is a matter for saudi arabia

I wonder if a British soldier accidently kills and American soldiet wether Corny will view it as purely a British Army matter...

and when their deaths were a result of criminal negligence, then it is a crime. And criminals deserve punishment.

It was clear even from the newspaper report that it was an accidnet.

I would.

I doubt it.

But hell, let's test that. British soldier kills american soldier, matter of the british you say.

Saudi Arabian terrorist mastermines plot against a US military base....matter for Saudi Arabia?

It was clear even from the newspaper report that it was an accidnet.

And, as I've told corny many many times in this thread, just because it was an accident, doesn't mean it wasn't criminal.

Manslaughter is an accident. Still a crime.

I wonder if a British soldier accidently kills and American soldiet wether Corny will view it as purely a British Army matter...

I would.

And, as I've told corny many many times in this thread, just because it was an accident, doesn't mean it wasn't criminal.

Manslaughter is an accident. Still a crime.

So talk me through what would make it criminal negligence then?

This is a matter of jurisdiction - and this is a purely legal matter - not a political one.

Apparently, long standing agreements are already in place to decide jurisdiction, and apparently, the British civilian courts have no standing in this matter.

Not NECESSARILY true. A british civilian court can conclude that a british citizen was killed, and that his death was a matter of criminal negligence. While that verdict would not force this soldier to be given to britain, it would make him, in the eyes of the british government, a fugitive, and he could be arrested if he attempts to enter British land.

This is a matter of jurisdiction - and this is a purely legal matter - not a political one.

Apparently, long standing agreements are already in place to decide jurisdiction, and apparently, the British civilian courts have no standing in this matter.

What's the purpose of negotiating and signing agreements if you're going to reneg on them the moment it becomes politically expedient?

Aren't most of you arguing that negotiations, agreements, and thus, international law should always be obeyed?

I'll say this AGAIN... jeez... is it not in the best interests of everyone involved, the family of the victim, the pilots, the US and British governments, if the evidence was released and the accident was PROVED to be just that, an accident? Never mind legal obligations or such, just WHY NOT?

Wicked! I'm going to go driving at night with sunglasses on! what bout flying at night -over NYC- with sunglasses on! :D

This is a matter of jurisdiction - and this is a purely legal matter - not a political one.

Apparently, long standing agreements are already in place to decide jurisdiction, and apparently, the British civilian courts have no standing in this matter.

What's the purpose of negotiating and signing agreements if you're going to reneg on them the moment it becomes politically expedient?

Aren't most of you arguing that negotiations, agreements, and thus, international law should always be obeyed?

@ No need, it was an accident :D

US not guilty.

Prove it :D

So talk me through what would make it criminal negligence then?

they were outside of the zone considered dangerous, they ignored or did not recognize indications such as the orange signs that identified this convey is british, and they made a second attack after warning flares had been fired by the convoy.

attacked a convoy, bearing marks of an ally, who sent up warning flares, outside of the hot zone.

Conduct that a reasonable person would not have engaged in. Sounds like negligence to me.

*snippage of flaming, smiley whoring post*Kindly direct your attention to the ToS of this site, and in particular the rules (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=410573) regarding flaming. The definition in use on this forum are not subjective in nature...as in it doesn't matter what you think is flaming, or what I think is flaming...but rather what the Moderators have deemed to be flaming.

That's the last time I think any of us will bother trying to make the rules clear to you.

this was investigated.
Where?Corny: "@ US"

By whom? Corny: "US"

the results?Corny: "US not guilty."

what proof? Corny: "No need, it was an accident :D"

Gotta link?Corny: "No need, it was an accident :D"

Can we try with our British Courts? Corny: "No need, it was an accident :D"

Corny: "No need, it was an accident :D"

So prove it was then by releasing the evidence :D

Take it to moderation if you really think it's trolling.

Otherwise, cease what is becoming trolling on your own part.

Ditto.
Take it it moderation if you deem it to be trolling and/orflaming.
I said it was trollish. ...get dictionary...read.
Might one suggest the Concise Oxford :D

Are you a southern boy perchance?

From the Sun Newspaper (http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060289,00.html)

Thought I would never quote the Sun but they do seem to have been doing some proper journalism. Anyway according to them at least one pilot promoted and now training other pilots.

From radio report it seems the pilots had doubts before the attack noticing orange markers on top of the vehicals but talked themselves into attacking seeking the kill. At least one pilot had at least 20 years experience but this was his first combat situation.

One purpose of inquests is to identify how to do things better and avoid unnecessary deaths. By not co-operating the USA surely creates a situation where we have to consider whether the risks to our military by our "friends" are too great.

Oh of course I'm not. Just that the review board has labeled this an accident and that is good enough for me.

Oh, that must be so nice for you, I'll just contact the widow and say how good you feel , do have a nice day and I do hope Osma Bin Laden does not come calling overnight.....that would be good enough for me....:)

This is an issue involving the death of a British soldier - you seem to be saying that the death of an ally is of no consequence as long as no US citizen has to face any consequences.

They were investigated by the Friendly Fire Review board. They felt that no charges should be filed. If they recommended charges and none were brought, then I'll be yelling for their heads on a plate. Since they did not recommend charges and labeled this tragedy as an accident, I consider the matter closed.

They were investigated by the Friendly Fire Review board. They felt that no charges should be filed. If they recommended charges and none were brought, then I'll be yelling for their heads on a plate. Since they did not recommend charges and labeled this tragedy as an accident, I consider the matter closed.

as I asked you before, if a saudi arabian terrorist plans and executes an attack on a US military base, without ever entering US soil himself, would you differ the matter to saudi arabia and, if saudi arabia found no criminal liability, accept this?

Do you promote releasing the prisoners in guantanamo, many of whom had never stepped foot on US soil in their lives, and were not US citizens, to their home countries?

Somehow...I doubt it.

Your not going to listen are you? Keep repeating yourself, your winning our argument for us. :D

Sure is.
'Brains' and 'Lack of' springs to mind. :D :D

I wonder if a British soldier accidently kills and American soldiet wether Corny will view it as purely a British Army matter...

Of course I would. Nations are responsible for their own military forces.

It was clear even from the newspaper report that it was an accidnet.

THANK YOU!!!!

This forum requires that you wait 30 seconds between posts. Please try again in 7 seconds.

God I hate that. LOL

oh I see.

You're a moron.

No, that's the point.
You don't see because....well, .how can I put this....
inbreeding?

they were outside of the zone considered dangerous, they ignored or did not recognize indications such as the orange signs that identified this convey is british, and they made a second attack after warning flares had been fired by the convoy.

attacked a convoy, bearing marks of an ally, who sent up warning flares, outside of the hot zone.

Conduct that a reasonable person would not have engaged in. Sounds like negligence to me.

Then in that case, if all of that is true, I agree with you.

Oh, that must be so nice for you, I'll just contact the widow and say how good you feel , do have a nice day and I do hope Osma Bin Laden does not come calling overnight.....that would be good enough for me....:)

If bin Laden wants to come over, he'll be in for a rude surprise.

They were investigated by the British Coronor. They felt that perhapscharges should be filed. If they recommended nocharges and theye were brought, then I'll be yelling for their innocence. Since they did recommend charges and labeled this as notan accident, I consider the matter closed.

AGAIN, see how that works? Stop repeating yourself and address the issue at hand

Are you a southern boy perchance?

Neesika is not a Southern boy. But even if she were, you'd still be trolling. I've seen several troll posts from you now.

Read the rules in the Moderation forum and start following them, or enjoy a nice break from the forums if I see another trolling post from you.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Ditto.
Take it it moderation if you deem it to be trolling and/orflaming.
I said it was trollish. ...get dictionary...read.
Might one suggest the Concise Oxford :D

Are you a southern boy perchance?

Oh, that must be so nice for you, I'll just contact the widow and say how good you feel , do have a nice day and I do hope Osma Bin Laden does not come calling overnight.....that would be good enough for me....:)

Sure is.
'Brains' and 'Lack of' springs to mind. :D :D

No, that's the point.
You don't see because....well, .how can I put this....
inbreeding?

Daft Viagria, you've contributed nothing to this thread but trolling and flaming yourself. Forget the dictionary - have a look at the One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=8784627), which defines the rules for this site.

This is an unofficial warning. The next time you come to our attention may not be as pleasant. Take the hint - read the link.

~ Frisbeeteria ~
NationStates Senior Game Moderator
The One-Stop Rules Shop (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=416023)

If bin Laden wants to come over, he'll be in for a rude surprise.

Reality check time.......if you guys can't figure who is on your side..........

...there's no way you'll figure who isn't...........


Do try not to think too much about that British soldier that died.....I'm sure the Blues and Royals will remember .....and the rest of the British Forces......
et al.....

AGAIN, see how that works? Stop repeating yourself and address the issue at hand

:rolleyes:

I have numerous times. Not my fault people here do not like what is being said.

:rolleyes:

I have numerous times. Not my fault people here do not like what is being said.

You have not addressed any issue you have basically said "it was investigated, good enough for me, we are not obligated to do anything else".

The issue of the validity of the investigation?
The issue of the nationality of the victim?
The issue of the feelings of the family?
The issue of the high number of US on UK friendly fire incidents?
The MAIN issue of the USAF supposedly being able to refute the coronors findings yet refusing to so?

You have failed to address a single one of these issue. YOU FAIL :D

Reality check time.......if you guys can't figure who is on your side..........

...there's no way you'll figure who isn't...........


Do try not to think too much about that British soldier that died.....I'm sure the Blues and Royals will remember .....and the rest of the British Forces......
et al.....

You join the military, you get the risk of death either via blue on blue or red on blue. This is a tragedy yes. Won't deny it and my sympathies to the family. With that said, nothing criminal took place here so....

With that said, nothing criminal took place here so....

considering your rather large misstatements about the way the law works, in this very thread no less, your legal analysis has been demonstrably....lacking.

You have not addressed any issue you have basically said "it was investigated, good enough for me, we are not obligated to do anything else".

And it was investigated by those responsible. That being the US Military as they have governance over US military forces.

The issue of the validity of the investigation?

The investigation was valid and in accordance with the UCMJ.

The issue of the nationality of the victim?

Does not matter when it comes to US military justice. This is a non-issue in that regard.

The issue of the feelings of the family?

Welcome to life in the mlitary. You deal with death each and every day.

The issue of the high number of US on UK friendly fire incidents?

Nothing to do with it in this case. Each case is handled seperately.

The MAIN issue of the USAF supposedly being able to refute the coronors findings yet refusing to so?

That's because it is a US matter and not a British one.

You have failed to address a single one of these issue. YOU FAIL :D

No I didn't fail to address. As I stated, this was a US military matter and it was dealt with by the US Military governing authorities.

And it was investigated by those responsible. That being the US Military as they have governance over US military forces.



The investigation was valid and in accordance with the UCMJ.



Does not matter when it comes to US military justice. This is a non-issue in that regard.



Welcome to life in the mlitary. You deal with death each and every day.



Nothing to do with it in this case. Each case is handled seperately.



That's because it is a US matter and not a British one.



No I didn't fail to address. As I stated, this was a US military matter and it was dealt with by the US Military governing authorities.

And yet again you have simply repeated yourself. You are not addressinfg the issues you are simply rejecteing them.

I'll ask for the FOURTH time.

Even though you don't have to, why not release the evidence and prove it was an accident for the world to see? What harm would it do?

Instead of fobbing us off and repeating yourself AGAIN, try simply answering the question. Go on. You know you want to. I dare you :D

Neesika is not a Southern boy. But even if she were, you'd still be trolling. I've seen several troll posts from you now.

Read the rules in the Moderation forum and start following them, or enjoy a nice break from the forums if I see another trolling post from you.

NationStates Forum Moderator
HotRodia

Ha, how d'yall know Neesika is not a Southern boy????
How d'yall know Neesika is a Girl ?
Where do you get the trolling stuff from "several troll posts :rolleyes: "
show one....

Read the rules in the Moderation forum and start following them
Err, do these just apply to people outside of the unknitted states of america or is this a forum..... (read up a bit of latin here if you are having problems with the word "forum'

And err, I do have a life outside this board, I'd just like to educate people into ....life outside smalltown tex as.
You got a problem with that?

show one....
I showed several.

Err, do these just apply to people outside of the unknitted states of america or is this a forum..... (read up a bit of latin here if you are having problems with the word "forum'

Thanks for the education. You can brush up on your definitions over the next three days.

No I didn't fail to address. As I stated, this was a US military matter and it was dealt with by the US Military governing authorities.


If you want partners in your wars as President Bush saught before this war then expect us to expect co-operation. Partnership is not partnership if one sided.

If we are to put our forces in with yours then they are entitled to feel they can trust their comrades in arms. If they cannot trust the competence, training and intelligence of the soldiers how can they work together. These are areas that the USA felt it could not talk to the Oxford Coroner.

So you fully believe everything and agree to everything your government says. Thats a neat way of abrogating your responsibilities. However the fact is that the incident involved non Americans. Under our laws any death outside of natural causes is investigated. So for someone to say that Dept X said all is ok is not good enough in a court..not even a coroners court. It also goes against every aspect of western jurisprudence. Even if Dept X is a UK government org.



I've had a little experience on Courts Martial panels, as well as the administrative boards that make decisions like the Air Force did. All I can tell you is that from my personal experience, the people that sit on these boards are as interested in justice as you are. If they found no fault, then there was more than likely no fault.

Are you a southern boy perchance?
Hey Neesi, welcome to the Holy Land!

I've had a little experience on Courts Martial panels, as well as the administrative boards that make decisions like the Air Force did. All I can tell you is that from my personal experience, the people that sit on these boards are as interested in justice as you are. If they found no fault, then there was more than likely no fault.

Justice??? Its got nothing to do with justice. The only time when justice appears on the battlefield is if something equiv to a genocide has occurred...if its been reported.

I am not blaming the pilots. Not at all and never have done. I am attacking and blaming the system that allows this stupidity to happen.

What we (or I) are looking for is ways to improve the system so that it does not happen again. I find it annoying and sad that this is not supported by the US military.

I'm not sure if you guys realise that shit like this eats goodwill like a bastard. Carry on down this route of 'we are the US and the rest of you can go fuck yourselves' and you will loose allies.

Is that what you want?

/as an aside I am glad you did not misinterpret my post as an attack on you personally.


As for Courts Martial....its not a CM. No one has faced a CM. I am not convinced that the pilots should face it either. However I do think at least 2 commanders need to answer some questions.

Ground Control (no friendlies) and the training of the pilots...I mean come on...send a bunch of pilots into a war with allies...and the pilots have no idea about them?? That is negligent.

Hey Neesi, welcome to the Holy Land!

Screw that, welcome to suddenly having a penis, apparently! I'll never leave the house again!:eek:

:rolleyes:

I have numerous times. Not my fault people here do not like what is being said.

Problem is that you are not really saying anything.


No I didn't fail to address. As I stated, this was a US military matter and it was dealt with by the US Military governing authorities.

No. It was a British Army matter actually. Seeing as it was a Brit who was killed by a yank.

Don't worry. I realise this is beyond you so I am not expecting a reply.

Justice??? Its got nothing to do with justice. The only time when justice appears on the battlefield is if something equiv to a genocide has occurred...if its been reported.

I am not blaming the pilots. Not at all and never have done. I am attacking and blaming the system that allows this stupidity to happen.

What we (or I) are looking for is ways to improve the system so that it does not happen again. I find it annoying and sad that this is not supported by the US military.

I'm not sure if you guys realise that shit like this eats goodwill like a bastard. Carry on down this route of 'we are the US and the rest of you can go fuck yourselves' and you will loose allies.

Is that what you want?

/as an aside I am glad you did not misinterpret my post as an attack on you personally.


As for Courts Martial....its not a CM. No one has faced a CM. I am not convinced that the pilots should face it either. However I do think at least 2 commanders need to answer some questions.

Ground Control (no friendlies) and the training of the pilots...I mean come on...send a bunch of pilots into a war with allies...and the pilots have no idea about them?? That is negligent.
This stuff sells soap. Get a crying widow in front of a bunch of reporters and you have instant ratings. Add an anti-war assistant deputy coroner to the mix and you get even more headlines. Military to military, I suspect it's a dead, sorry, issue.

I've been in the seat and had to make the decisions about what to bomb and what not to bomb. I was an A-6 bombardier in Desert Storm. There's way too much going on in a hostile environment for anyone to be making extra passes on a potentially threating target. Personally, I made darned sure I knew who was operating in the area that we did CAS, but I was never 100% certain that I wasn't going to cause friendly casualties.

For all I know, the Brits may have opened fire on the A-10s. Probably not, but a reflection in a mirror may have looked like a muzzle flash. I doubt that all friendly fire casualties can ever be eliminated but the U.S. is making a lot of acquisitions and spending a lot of money in Blue Force Tracking systems (http://www.gdc4s.com/content/detail.cfm?item=35fd8857-c9fe-4036-8739-15f2f8ebd0f6).
These systems, when they are operational, may well eliminate any blue on blue engagements.

Screw that, welcome to suddenly having a penis, apparently! I'll never leave the house again!:eek:
It's been a bad week for you hasn't it? Southern and male in the same sentence.

This stuff sells soap. Get a crying widow in front of a bunch of reporters and you have instant ratings. Add an anti-war assistant deputy coroner to the mix and you get even more headlines. Military to military, I suspect it's a dead, sorry, issue.

I've been in the seat and had to make the decisions about what to bomb and what not to bomb. I was an A-6 bombardier in Desert Storm. There's way too much going on in a hostile environment for anyone to be making extra passes on a potentially threating target. Personally, I made darned sure I knew who was operating in the area that we did CAS, but I was never 100% certain that I wasn't going to cause friendly casualties.

For all I know, the Brits may have opened fire on the A-10s. Probably not, but a reflection in a mirror may have looked like a muzzle flash. I doubt that all friendly fire casualties can ever be eliminated but the U.S. is making a lot of acquisitions and spending a lot of money in Blue Force Tracking systems (http://www.gdc4s.com/content/detail.cfm?item=35fd8857-c9fe-4036-8739-15f2f8ebd0f6).
These systems, when they are operational, may well eliminate any blue on blue engagements.

Granted, and I do not hold the US pilots to account for what occurred. However, in light of the resolute manner in which the UK has stood by the USA of late, and our "special relationship", why have the US military authorities been so reticent to release the tapes, given that the pilots are unlikely to be prosecuted.

Granted, and I do not hold the US pilots to account for what occurred. However, in light of the resolute manner in which the UK has stood by the USA of late, and our "special relationship", why have the US military authorities been so reticent to release the tapes, given that the pilots are unlikely to be prosecuted.
USA comes before UK. Always has, always will - especially while You Know Who is Prime Minister.

Granted, and I do not hold the US pilots to account for what occurred. However, in light of the resolute manner in which the UK has stood by the USA of late, and our "special relationship", why have the US military authorities been so reticent to release the tapes, given that the pilots are unlikely to be prosecuted.

Why is it necessary to release any tapes publicly? Why isn't this a military to military matter?

Why is it necessary to release any tapes publicly? Why isn't this a military to military matter?

Because justice doesn't just have to be done, it has to be seen to be done.

This stuff sells soap. Get a crying widow in front of a bunch of reporters and you have instant ratings. Add an anti-war assistant deputy coroner to the mix and you get even more headlines. Military to military, I suspect it's a dead, sorry, issue.

I've been in the seat and had to make the decisions about what to bomb and what not to bomb. I was an A-6 bombardier in Desert Storm. There's way too much going on in a hostile environment for anyone to be making extra passes on a potentially threating target. Personally, I made darned sure I knew who was operating in the area that we did CAS, but I was never 100% certain that I wasn't going to cause friendly casualties.

For all I know, the Brits may have opened fire on the A-10s. Probably not, but a reflection in a mirror may have looked like a muzzle flash. I doubt that all friendly fire casualties can ever be eliminated but the U.S. is making a lot of acquisitions and spending a lot of money in Blue Force Tracking systems (http://www.gdc4s.com/content/detail.cfm?item=35fd8857-c9fe-4036-8739-15f2f8ebd0f6).
These systems, when they are operational, may well eliminate any blue on blue engagements.

Crying widow yes (and understandable).

Anti war Coroner? Sorry but unless I've missed something there is nothing about the guy being anti war.

Military to military I can tell you that squaddies really do not enjoy joint ventures with the Americans. Fuck only knows what the brass thinks. It is not a dead issue in any way shape or form.

Regarding your experience....well I trust you noticed that I attach no blame on the pilots. I do blame the system that allowed this to happen. It is negligence on behalf of the ANG/USAF/DoD. To send pilots into war without proper training to identify allies is foolish, especially these days where NATO exercises have highlighted these issues and measure taken to deal with them.

Yes there are steps being taken. However. The orange markers to identify friendly forces was well known. Why was this not known by the pilots? Why did no one tell them? Hell the pilots even eyeballed the colours...and said they were missile launchers. On a Scimitar? Neither pilot even raised the thought that orange could mean friendlies...or moved off grid to id the ground units.

It just seems to me that there is a either a definite lack of communications between the DoD and MoD on force integration or there are personality issues between the two that prevents proper collusion to achieve defined objectives.

I love this. The military panel is fair and balanced and interested in justice, but the coroner is an anti-war protester with an agenda.

Well...duh.

Why is it necessary to release any tapes publicly? Why isn't this a military to military matter?

Because under UK law all deaths not related to natural causes must be investigated by a Coroner. That includes battle related deaths.

Add an anti-war assistant deputy coroner to the mix

I love this. The military panel is fair and balanced and interested in justice, but the coroner is an anti-war protester with an agenda.

I wonder if things went the other way if this would be the same evaluation

I love this. The military panel is fair and balanced and interested in justice, but the coroner is an anti-war protester with an agenda.

I wonder if things went the other way if this would be the same evaluation
Deputy assistant coroner. What next? Is his mate's mother in law anti war?

Deputy assistant coroner. What next? Is his mate's mother in law anti war?

But a Coroner nonetheless.

They had to contract a bunch of people there to process the war dead and could not give them full status as they were contractors.

Yes there are steps being taken. However. The orange markers to identify friendly forces was well known. Why was this not known by the pilots? Why did no one tell them? Hell the pilots even eyeballed the colours...and said they were missile launchers. On a Scimitar? Neither pilot even raised the thought that orange could mean friendlies...or moved off grid to id the ground units.

It just seems to me that there is a either a definite lack of communications between the DoD and MoD on force integration or there are personality issues between the two that prevents proper collusion to achieve defined objectives.
We used orange trash bags in Desert Storm. They were just about useless. The wind and sand would cause them to deteriorate to the point where they weren't particularly visible...There's a couple things that can happen in the imperfect real world. First, deconfliction is hard. It's hard enough to deconflict friendly forces that are all under the same chain of command. It's even harder when they aren't. Maybe messages were sent that described the deconfliction procedures. If the pilots, or their superiors ignored them, then shame on them. I don't think that was the case, or the review board would have released that as a finding.

The other big thing that can happen is that someone can exercise bad judgment. That's darned tough to figure out after the fact.

As far as your comment on the squaddies...I exchanged with a Tornado squadron in the mid '80s and I didn't get the feeling that there was anything more than the kind of bravado that goes with every inter-service rivalry. I was certainly the recipient of a few "damn yank" remarks, but there were more than enough opportunities to pick on your "second rate" Navy. Everyone had another drink and started talking about the bird across the pub.

I really think the Blue Force tracking initiatives are going to pay off. That is if the Democrats ever let us use the military for anything besides parades, again.

Don't think, just kill.

I love this. The military panel is fair and balanced and interested in justice, but the coroner is an anti-war protester with an agenda.

I wonder if things went the other way if this would be the same evaluation

The guy certainly thinks he a military tactician. I don't know about his agenda, but this certainly has been a wonderful bunch of publicity for him. Maybe even enough to get promoted to deputy coroner, huh?

I know you don't appreciate or understand, but the military is not interested in hiding this kind of mishap. Cover-ups are never in anyone's best interest and I think the military understands that. The civilian side still seems to cling to the idea that you can contain a big secret for reasons I'll never know.

This stuff sells soap. Get a crying widow in front of a bunch of reporters and you have instant ratings. Add an anti-war assistant deputy coroner to the mix and you get even more headlines. Military to military, I suspect it's a dead, sorry, issue.

Think you need to retract the first part of your statement. It is simply offensive. Susan Hull has been a calm strong intelligent presence in this whole issue. There is no reason to suspect Andrew Watson is an anti war coroner. In fact as the Oxford Coroner's court covers RAF Brise Norton base he is probably one of the the leading coroners in the UK dealing with British military deaths. He does not need to get more headlines



For all I know, the Brits may have opened fire on the A-10s. Probably not, but a reflection in a mirror may have looked like a muzzle flash. I doubt that all friendly fire casualties can ever be eliminated but the U.S. is making a lot of acquisitions and spending a lot of money in Blue Force Tracking systems (http://www.gdc4s.com/content/detail.cfm?item=35fd8857-c9fe-4036-8739-15f2f8ebd0f6).
These systems, when they are operational, may well eliminate any blue on blue engagements.

There is no suggestion from the pilots video that either thought they had been fired on. If there was it would have shown.

Something happened which became a tradegy for Matty Hull his family his 4 injured colleagues the USA pilots. One of the roles of our coroners courts is to look at chains of responsibility. For example one of the items of information the coroner wanted was the training records of the pilots. There seems to be some question as to whether they were properly trained to recognise allies and iraqi military equipment as well as the established identification systems (which they mistook for orange missles).

Several American courts martial and other events seem to have concentrated onm low ranking military the competence, knowledge daily orders etc are responsibility of more senior military. I suspect if these two pilotes had been allowed to estify we would have found flaws in the command and training processes.

We are not looking for scape goats we just want and think it important that there is an open and clear investigation providing and opportunity to learn. That learning if a partnership must be on both sides of the Atlantic. That the USA will not do so makes us question their value as an ally.

The guy certainly thinks he a military tactician. I don't know about his agenda, but this certainly has been a wonderful bunch of publicity for him. Maybe even enough to get promoted to deputy coroner, huh?


Well fact is he is not having his contract renewed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6335701.stm

Well fact is he is not having his contract renewed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/oxfordshire/6335701.stm

So let me get this right, he's complaining that the U.K. didn't grant his request to show a video?


"Andrew Walker criticised the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for failing to clear the video to be shown at an inquest."

So when did this become a problem for the U.S.?

We used orange trash bags in Desert Storm. They were just about useless. The wind and sand would cause them to deteriorate to the point where they weren't particularly visible...There's a couple things that can happen in the imperfect real world. First, deconfliction is hard. It's hard enough to deconflict friendly forces that are all under the same chain of command. It's even harder when they aren't. Maybe messages were sent that described the deconfliction procedures. If the pilots, or their superiors ignored them, then shame on them. I don't think that was the case, or the review board would have released that as a finding.

The other big thing that can happen is that someone can exercise bad judgment. That's darned tough to figure out after the fact.

As far as your comment on the squaddies...I exchanged with a Tornado squadron in the mid '80s and I didn't get the feeling that there was anything more than the kind of bravado that goes with every inter-service rivalry. I was certainly the recipient of a few "damn yank" remarks, but there were more than enough opportunities to pick on your "second rate" Navy. Everyone had another drink and started talking about the bird across the pub.

I really think the Blue Force tracking initiatives are going to pay off. That is if the Democrats ever let us use the military for anything besides parades, again.

Well fact is we don't know as the board had its findings censored. So that renders moot any idea that the board are open. The hearing is held internally. There is no independent adjudication. Which is how the military likes it.

I understand that they used orange tarpaulins. Not cheap plastic bin liners.

RAF is not squaddies (barring the RAF Regiment). Squaddies are ground forces. You just faced the usual ribbing. Very mild. I suspect if you had been with the Royal Marines or Commandos your experience might have been different. Who knows.

I hope the tech works but given that tech seems to fuck things more than fix things it remains to be seen.

Wasn't FDR a Dem?

the military is not interested in hiding this kind of mishap. Cover-ups are never in anyone's best interest and I think the military understands that.

suuuuuure they aren't. Just like they weren't in vietnam

My Lai Massacre? what My Lai Massacre? After all "In direct refutation of this portrayal is the fact that relations between American soldiers and the Vietnamese people are excellent."

Oh, you have photographs?

Well...ok, we did have a teeny tiny little massacre. More of a spat really.

So let me get this right, he's complaining that the U.K. didn't grant his request to show a video?


"Andrew Walker criticised the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for failing to clear the video to be shown at an inquest."

So when did this become a problem for the U.S.?

MoD had been shown video by U.S. U.S. however refused permission for video to be shown to court. Suspect there are some very frustrated and angry people in MoD who could not say what they wanted because of agreements between USA and British governments. would suspect someone there leaked it to the Sun.

So let me get this right, he's complaining that the U.K. didn't grant his request to show a video?


"Andrew Walker criticised the Ministry of Defence (MoD) for failing to clear the video to be shown at an inquest."

So when did this become a problem for the U.S.?

A row over the tape erupted last week when the coroner, Andrew Walker, attacked defence officials for failing to provide a copy to show the court.

He was forced to adjourn the inquest in frustration at the failure by the Ministry of Defence (MoD) to get the permission of the US authorities to use the recording in evidence.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6334769.stm

Wasn't FDR a Dem?
Along with Truman, JFK, LBJ, Wilson, Polk...

Along with Truman, JFK, LBJ, Wilson, Polk...

Quite.

not even if its about war crimes?

This pilot is not about War crimes I know.. but I want to know if the Never-Extradite-US-citizens-rule applies to War Crimes too.It doesn't matter what it's about. But you've just nailed why the policy is seen as illegitimate by the rest of the world.

"The death of a UK soldier when a US pilot fired on his convoy in Iraq was unlawful, a coroner has ruled."

The coroner is not a judge. All he can say is how the person died, not ruling about the law.

"It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."

Circular reasoning.

"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake."

So, the US pilot sought out an allied British convoy to take pot shots at? True, the pilot was obviously careless, but doing it on purpose?

Overall, I think it was a tragic accident. The US might have tried to cover their ass. I especially like the coroner ruling on international law.

1. Yes but it must be obvious to even you, I trust you are neither a judge or coroner, that this was an unlawful and pointless, callous act.

2. But not deniable, eh?

3. Because like alot in the past he though he was John Fucking Wayne, it's happened so many times and'll happen again. The American obsession with explosions and weaponry- just type friendly fire into wikipedia. The amount of Brits and other people blown away by Americans who didn't think to radio in to see if there were allies in the area or to check markings or to just THINK. It happened in the Gulf War '91, WW2, Korea- my grandad watch a brigade of fellow RM's get blown away by an American air raid, pretty much anywhere.

He wanted something to shoot at what with all the trouble off shipping the ammo over and the hard on he got from being in an A-10.

As for his excuse- how the fuck do Scimitars with Allied markings look like crappy Iraqi rocket launchers.

Just watched BBC footage of some U.S defence **** reading some BS statement- he just read it, didnt look up, didn't name Hull ("the indivdual") it's clear no-one there cares. I mean I new they didnt care about injustices with Iraqis but aren't we supposed to be friends?

Screw them, let's side with China if we must, fuck U.S bumming sycaphants, least then we'll know where we stand.

It doesn't matter what it's about. But you've just nailed it.I always bring down da (http://www.wirelesscord.com/music/hammertime.mp3) HAMMER.

;) unless I am on my coffee break.. of course

I've had a little experience on Courts Martial panels, as well as the administrative boards that make decisions like the Air Force did. All I can tell you is that from my personal experience, the people that sit on these boards are as interested in justice as you are. If they found no fault, then there was more than likely no fault.

Indeed. Well said.

Justice??? Its got nothing to do with justice.

This thread has everything to do with Justice.

The only time when justice appears on the battlefield is if something equiv to a genocide has occurred...if its been reported.

Then where is the Justice for Darfur?

As for Courts Martial....its not a CM. No one has faced a CM. I am not convinced that the pilots should face it either. However I do think at least 2 commanders need to answer some questions.

What makes you think that they haven't answered those questions?

Problem is that you are not really saying anything.



No. It was a British Army matter actually. Seeing as it was a Brit who was killed by a yank.

Don't worry. I realise this is beyond you so I am not expecting a reply.

And it was investigated by the proper authorities (the USAF) and they see no basis for a Court Martial. They labeled it as an accident. Since the Pilots fall under the UCMJ of the United States, this stays a US matter regardless of the nationality of the person killed. The pilots answer to the American chain of command and thus it is America's responsibility to investigate and, if necessary, charge the people involved. These people labeled it an accident and that's good enough for me.

Why is it necessary to release any tapes publicly? Why isn't this a military to military matter?

Because of the anti-war nuts around here. This is a military to military issue. Notice that this was a civilian coroner and not a military doctor. I'm sure the militaries of both nations have settled this issue and has moved on as they should.

Because under UK law all deaths not related to natural causes must be investigated by a Coroner. That includes battle related deaths.

Now that's just plain stupid. :rolleyes:

I always bring down da (http://www.wirelesscord.com/music/hammertime.mp3) HAMMER.

;) unless I am on my coffee break.. of courseBlack humour for the win :p

I've had a little experience on Courts Martial panels, as well as the administrative boards that make decisions like the Air Force did. All I can tell you is that from my personal experience, the people that sit on these boards are as interested in justice as you are. If they found no fault, then there was more than likely no fault.

You mean like they did in this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable-car_disaster)? :rolleyes:

Now that's just plain stupid. :rolleyes:

No. Whats stupid is me wasting time replying to your repetitive posts.

This whole thing shows what a bunch of pathetic, gutless cowards run this country. If our 'allies' won't even cooperate with our investigations, why should we ever cooperate with their wars?

The Americans have no reason to care about or prevent these friendly fire incidents because they know that at the end of they day, our pathetic leaders (Labour or Conservative) will come back begging for more.

Overall, I think it was a tragic accident. The US might have tried to cover their ass. I especially like the coroner ruling on international law.

A truck driver mowing down a bunch of children while asleep at the wheel is a tragic accident. It is also criminal negligence. As it was in this case.

Said truck driver would go to jail. Would this pilot go to jail? Unlikely. The US has a long history of pardoning its soldiers of all manner of atrocities. Friendly fire incidents are something it can ignore easily enough.

Because of the anti-war nuts around here. This is a military to military issue. Notice that this was a civilian coroner and not a military doctor. I'm sure the militaries of both nations have settled this issue and has moved on as they should.

Your ignorance shows itself and you impose and immediatley make an American assumption. A coroner is a legal position in Britain with either a medical or lawyers background. A military doctor would be totally inappropriate I suspect you are thinking of a pathologist. If you have conducted your whole debate not understanding the suituation it must cast doubt on the validity of your contribution.

It is important that the military is subject to aspects of the civilian courts.

To criticise our legal position our systems in a situation where the fundemental mistake was made by the Americans is ludicrous, defensive (cowardly), a distortion of reality and basically offensive.

It is also notable that many ex military have been talking in the British media today critically of the U.S. govenment and military referring to many other friendly fire situations. Our military will probably not make any comment however they often get their views out via ex military. The one thing they are all wondering about is the training provided to USA pilots.

Anti-war nuts weird phrase I would hope nobody is pro war, Surely to be pro war is the more illogical position.

Your ignorance shows itself and you impose and immediatley make an American assumption. A coroner is a legal position in Britain with either a medical or lawyers background. A military doctor would be totally inappropriate I suspect you are thinking of a pathologist. If you have conducted your whole debate not understanding the suituation it must cast doubt on the validity of your contribution.

This is typical corny tactics. Enter a conversation knowing nothing on the topic. Make several serious errors. Get the errors pointed out. Ignore this, continue to repeat errors. Errors pointed out again. Will either ignore, again, or claim he never said this, despite reference to specific words. In this case he will claim he was misinterpreted, and obviously the readers are too stupid to know what he meant, or he was kidding, and the readers are too stupid to know what he meant.

Will at this point leave the conversation, ignoring further refutation. Will return several hours later, repeat previous errors. Errors pointed out again and asked why he chose not to answer them. Will say he was "busy", tell posters to get a life. Continue to ignore errors.

It's a pretty standard procedure, you can set your watch to it.

It is also notable that many ex military have been talking in the British media today critically of the U.S. govenment and military referring to many other friendly fire situations. Our military will probably not make any comment however they often get their views out via ex military. The one thing they are all wondering about is the training provided to USA pilots.

Oh see the way it works here in america, the military is to be respected and admired, even after they retire, and honored for their service. However if the decorated former members of the military, after doing several tours of duty, become critical of current actions, they become traitorous, libelous, and, despite aformentioned several tours of duty, apparently cowardly as well.

So we all honor and respect our soldiers...as long as they agree with us. If those soldiers have opinions critical of current policies, well then fuck them. Besides, what do they know? They think they're in the army or something?

Anti-war nuts weird phrase I would hope nobody is pro war, Surely to be pro war is the more illogical position.

I don't get this either. It makes no sense as an insult. "You are anti war!".....yes, yes I am. I am generally against things where thousands of people die. Why aren't you?

It's the worst insult since "you....smell nice and are pleasant to look at!"

Since the Pilots fall under the UCMJ of the United States, this stays a US matter regardless of the nationality of the person killed. The pilots answer to the American chain of command and thus it is America's responsibility to investigate and, if necessary, charge the people involved. These people labeled it an accident and that's good enough for me.

That's wonderful reasoning - you've obviously given this a great deal of thought. Soldiers can do whatever they like, provided they can later persuade their superiors that it was okay. Great - "Don't worry lads, we can take care of the Iraqis. But run like hell if you see any Americans."

If I commit a crime, can I claim immunity from prosecution on the grounds that I was at work at the time, and my boss has decided it was an accident?

Rule of law! That's fine as long as it suits the USA ...

If I commit a crime, can I claim immunity from prosecution on the grounds that I was at work at the time, and my boss has decided it was an accident?

Only if your boss decided this after a complete and exhaustive examination of the facts which apparently consists of....talk to you, and asking you nicely if you did anything wrong.

No. Whats stupid is me wasting time replying to your repetitive posts.

No it is stupid for the Coroner to get involved in a battle death, in a combat zone, were everyone is shooting at one another. Cause of death: War.

You mean like they did in this case (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalese_cable-car_disaster)? :rolleyes:

Looks to me that they were indeed court-martialed for they were being stupid.

The Americans have no reason to care about or prevent these friendly fire incidents

I call bs and if you bothered to read the thread, you will see that we are trying to cut down on this short of crap.

No it is stupid for the Coroner to get involved in a battle death, in a combat zone, were everyone is shooting at one another. Cause of death: War.

Yawn. Sorry....you are no longer relevant to this thread. You are posting for one reason. Personally I think its quite sad that you need to seek validation of your beliefs in this way.

It is apparent that you are ignorant of judicial systems, jurisprudence, military matters and oh a host of other things that frankly I can't be bothered mention.

Hope you never end up in charge of people...esp in a war zone as you'll get your arse fragged faster than you can say 'Supersize me'.