NationStates Jolt Archive

Yawn. Sorry....you are no longer relevant to this thread.Sure he is, he's just not very good at being honest. Corny says that acording to the US, law is something you clubber foreigners with, nothing more. While he may be wrong trying to justify it, and incapable of pulling it off, he's absolutely right about it being the state of things. It's not like there's anything unofficial or secret about it.

Sure he is, he's just not very good at being honest. Corny says that acording to the US, law is something you clubber foreigners with, nothing more. While he may be wrong trying to justify it, and incapable of pulling it off, he's absolutely right about it being the state of things. It's not like there's anything unofficial or secret about it.

No. Why? Because he still thinks that this is only an issue for the Americans. It is not a British issue as well. That and the continued repetition of his (for want of a better expression) talking points makes it quite clear that he has no clue about the subject and the issue. Therefore he is not relevant to this thread.

You talk about the use of the club...well lets see....how long has that been going on now? Post WWII? Lets say we start with Suez.

Luckily I know that there are many many Americans who are revolted by the likes of Corny so I am not tarring every American as a bloodthirsty shoot first kneejerker...but it does seem that the US military is becoming a refuge for these sociopaths who do think that shooting first and fuck the hindmost is a perfectly acceptable methodology.

I just think it's sad the way the American administration can be so arrogant. I mean it's crap like this that can colour peoples opinions in ways that are extremely detrimental in the long term. It's a good way to turn the british public more and more anti-american and if you keep feeding it you're going to reach a point at which we're not allies anymore. These kind of things can build and have lasting effects on the british electorate. It just isn't good in the long run. I mean people will probably forget how this man died and after a while they'll probably forget how his family was treated but the feelings will remain.

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.

US marine rolls live grenade into his commander's tent. Commander dies. Cause of death: War

How'd you like them apples hmm?

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

Put to trial, yes. Brought to justice, no.
The Italian government provided the recompensation that the US government had initially promised, but never paid.

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.

The same thing happened with the death of Nicola Calipari, an agent of the SISMI (italian secret service) who was taking a journalist just resecued from her kidnappers to Baghdad airport. American soldier shot his car and killed him. Of course, the US deny the italian MPs even the right to talk with the accused soldier.
This has stirred up some disgust in Italy, even by the most pro-american-aligned parties, like Berlusconi's Forza Italia. Anything more than that? No. Italy continues acting like a colony.

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.

No, the Americans wern't being shot at adn wern't in a combat zone-they wehre flying to one...

The British wehre shot at, what is it about this you don't udenrstand.

what is it about this you don't udenrstand.

The English language perhaps?:D

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.

"Allies". America virtually owns Britain thanks to our government. It can do whatever it wants. Tony Blair and friends are hardly going to do anything about it are they?

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.

*dies of laughter*

I know proper chain of command. I know who falls under whose jurisdiction. These pilots are Americans who follow the US chain of command. These are Americans who fall under the American Uniform Code of Military Justice. That means, they are investigated by the USAF's investigative board. The board found no basis for a charge and thus, C-A-S-E C-L-O-S-E-D!

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.

Ignorant of military matters? Now that's funny since I have been around the United States Air Force for 24 years. Even my father has handled a Court Martial investigation. I know more about the military than you do. I know how military courts handle situations. The military has handled this as prescribed by Regulations. You do not like it well that is to damn bad. The investigative board ruled it an accident and by US Military Regulations, the matter is over despite what the coroner here is saying that it was criminal. By the USAF Investigative board, the blue on blue was indeed an accident and NOT criminal.

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'.

Funny as a crutch! Is that the best you can do? Please! I've been insulted by experts and you my friend, are no expert.

US marine rolls live grenade into his commander's tent. Commander dies. Cause of death: War

How'd you like them apples hmm?

That was pure murder and the dude has been sentenced for it. To bad he did not get executed for it as he richly deserved. The traitor.

Put to trial, yes. Brought to justice, no.
The Italian government provided the recompensation that the US government had initially promised, but never paid.

Wrong actually.

(From the Wiki article)In December 1999, the Italian legislature approved a enerous monetary compensation plan for the families ($1.9 million per victim). NATO treaties obliged the US government to pay 75% of this compensation, which it did. [4]

You were saying?

No, the Americans wern't being shot at adn wern't in a combat zone-they wehre flying to one...

The British wehre shot at, what is it about this you don't udenrstand.

That apparently there was a miscommunication somewhere.

The same thing happened with the death of Nicola Calipari, an agent of the SISMI (italian secret service) who was taking a journalist just resecued from her kidnappers to Baghdad airport. American soldier shot his car and killed him. Of course, the US deny the italian MPs even the right to talk with the accused soldier.
This has stirred up some disgust in Italy, even by the most pro-american-aligned parties, like Berlusconi's Forza Italia. Anything more than that? No. Italy continues acting like a colony.

Um could it be because he did not slow down for a checkpoint?

*dies of laughter*

I know proper chain of command. I know who falls under whose jurisdiction. These pilots are Americans who follow the US chain of command. These are Americans who fall under the American Uniform Code of Military Justice. That means, they are investigated by the USAF's investigative board. The board found no basis for a charge and thus, C-A-S-E C-L-O-S-E-D!

Corneliu The issue is not about investigating the individuals it is about investigating the events. Our government which should be answerable to its electorate has a responsability to ensure that the systems our soldiers fight under work. Our coroner's courts are there to investigate unusual deaths and to also make recommnedations. Our legal processes were blocked by US officials. There is no doubt of this. I think the likelyhood is these deaths could have been avoided if the pilots had been provided with proper training. We can not know if they have because this area of the US investigation has been hiddden from both the British and American public.


Ignorant of military matters? Now that's funny since I have been around the United States Air Force for 24 years. Even my father has handled a Court Martial investigation. I know more about the military than you do. I know how military courts handle situations. The military has handled this as prescribed by Regulations. You do not like it well that is to damn bad. The investigative board ruled it an accident and by US Military Regulations, the matter is over despite what the coroner here is saying that it was criminal. By the USAF Investigative board, the blue on blue was indeed an accident and NOT criminal.

You are ignorant of British procedures yet have been seeking to comment on them throughout this thread. You insulted the professonalism of the coroner yet clearly did not understand his role nor the constitutional relationships between military and civilian authorities in Britain. The Coroners court has not identified who is to blame certainly some of the blame would lie with the command and training structures.

There does appear to be a tendency in the American military judicial system to look at individuals often concentrating on the front line forces. Frontline soldiers appear to have borne the brunt of the responsibility for the abuse at Abu Grade prison not their commanders or political leaders.

Your continual raising of courts martial emphasises this. The coroner did not call for this the wife has not called for this this thread does not call for this. It does quesion why the USA authorities are reluctant to co-operate with their allies.

That apparently there was a miscommunication somewhere.

Have you read the transcripts mate? Seriosuly, you should. They wehre told clerly where the target was (appartnly a bunker) and that there wehre freindlys in the area. Yet they still opened fire...

That apparently there was a miscommunication somewhere.

and what do we often refer to a miscommunication that results in the deaths of innocents as?

You guessed it...NEGLIGENCE!

Somebody fucked up, and that fuck up resulted in the death of an innocent british citizen. His death was likely thus the result of criminal negligence.

Have you read the transcripts mate? Seriosuly, you should. They wehre told clerly where the target was (appartnly a bunker) and that there wehre freindlys in the area. Yet they still opened fire...

So they were shooting at an enemy bunker with friendlies in the area? Yea I bet they opened fired if that bunker was an enemy one. So now if they were indeed firing at an enemy bunker and the bomb hit the Brits, that proves that it is indeed an accident as the USAF investigative board stated.

*sigh*.

You'll do a lot of that arguing with Corny

So they were shooting at an enemy bunker with friendlies in the area? Yea I bet they opened fired if that bunker was an enemy one. So now if they were indeed firing at an enemy bunker and the bomb hit the Brits, that proves that it is indeed an accident as the USAF investigative board stated.

*sigh* no. There wasn't a bunker. They were nowhere NEAR a bunker.

They were en route to the bunker, when the pilots saw the british convey. Not AT the bunker, as they were flying to the bunker. And they saw an opportunity for an easy kill, so they took it.

So, to repeat, they were going TO the bunker, and they saw a convoy, in an area where there was a report of friendsly in the area, in an area where there was no report of Iraqi armor, that was carrying identification that marked them as allies, and after the first round of attacks, the british convoy shot up warning flairs, which were ignored when they came in for another pass.

This was not that they were bombing a bunker and the british forces happened to be there. They were GOING to bomb a bunker, and decided to take a shot at something that had every indication of being an ally.

indications that were ignored.

*dies of laughter*

I know proper chain of command. I know who falls under whose jurisdiction. These pilots are Americans who follow the US chain of command. These are Americans who fall under the American Uniform Code of Military Justice. That means, they are investigated by the USAF's investigative board. The board found no basis for a charge and thus, C-A-S-E C-L-O-S-E-D!



Ignorant of military matters? Now that's funny since I have been around the United States Air Force for 24 years. Even my father has handled a Court Martial investigation. I know more about the military than you do. I know how military courts handle situations. The military has handled this as prescribed by Regulations. You do not like it well that is to damn bad. The investigative board ruled it an accident and by US Military Regulations, the matter is over despite what the coroner here is saying that it was criminal. By the USAF Investigative board, the blue on blue was indeed an accident and NOT criminal.



Funny as a crutch! Is that the best you can do? Please! I've been insulted by experts and you my friend, are no expert.

How long have you served, where and when?

How long have you served, where and when?

According to what he has said previously he has some sort of condition he says excludes him from military service, even though other posters have told him that it doesn't

According to what he has said previously he has some sort of condition he says excludes him from military service, even though other posters have told him that it doesn't

Oh I don't know....he seems to be doing a good job as cannon fodder from the 101st Fighting Keyboarders...

Oh I don't know....he seems to be doing a good job as cannon fodder from the 101st Fighting Keyboarders...

I'm with the Royal Regiment of Mouseclickers myself.....:D

EDIT; Oh look he's buggered off when he can't answer back, what a surprise.......

Oh I don't know....he seems to be doing a good job as cannon fodder from the 101st Fighting Keyboarders...

Well we've got to use something as target practice, and I'll be damned if I use any of the posters that are actually interesting.

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.
Exactly, it's a mystery why people cannot see the sound strategic sense of shooting at your friends on the off-chance they're actually enemies. Some of what I've read (in this thread) indicates the kind of unreasonable expectations all the critics have, so pay them no mind. Some of them actually seem to think that the pilots should have been able to differentiate between enemy rockets and vehicle markings designed for the sole purpose of being being obvious, and readily identifiable to the pilots. As for waiting for identity confirmation, especially when you know you doubt the identity of your target, that's just silly hippy talk. As is the idea that when someone sends up flares designed to be recognised by you as signalling your allies, you ought to stop firing instead of coming in for another go.
.....The only greater mystery is why all those slack-butted allies wont take on a greater role and commit more soldiers to the farce on terrorism. I mean, what the hell is their problem?:confused:

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 look forward to your defense the day a US pilot 'accidently' drops bombs on a US school.

That was pure murder and the dude has been sentenced for it. To bad he did not get executed for it as he richly deserved. The traitor.

Nope, you can't have your cake and eat it. If you shoot your allies, it's either friendly fire or murder. Since you say shooting at your allies is not murder according to you, neither should killing your commanding officer.

Or let's have it differently. British SAS soldier 'accidently' leaves an armed bomb in US camp. Many casualties. Claims mistaken identity. Cause of death. War.

Besides, cowards like you who argue for war but run away from signing up shouldn't have any right to talk about war matters. And don't use that bullshit excuse of a non-existent disability. You're a disgrace to your parents.

According to what he has said previously he has some sort of condition he says excludes him from military service, even though other posters have told him that it doesn't

That's not entirely true. Excessive delusions that interfere with perception is valid excuse not to join.

Wrong actually.

(From the Wiki article)In December 1999, the Italian legislature approved a enerous monetary compensation plan for the families ($1.9 million per victim). NATO treaties obliged the US government to pay 75% of this compensation, which it did. [4]

You were saying?

They caused ALL of the deaths and suffering, and you think it's fair that they only paid 75%, and only because the injured parties were members of NATO?
You've got a very wrapped sense of justice.

So they were shooting at an enemy bunker with friendlies in the area?
No, they had been ordered to fly to the bunker, but on their way something distracted them and they stopped for some shits and giggles.

Yea I bet they opened fired if that bunker was an enemy one. So now if they were indeed firing at an enemy bunker and the bomb hit the Brits, that proves that it is indeed an accident as the USAF investigative board stated.
They were not firing on the bunker because they got side-tracked on the way and figured they'd fire on something they didnt have orders to fire on, even though they had no reason to believe it was the enemy and every reason to believe it was their ally.

They were ordered to go somewhere to do something. On the way they saw something else. They knew allies were in the area, they didnt have cause to believe enemies were but some reason to doubt they would be. They did see the markings that distinguished the vehicles as 'friendlies'. They stated to each other they didnt know who their unauthorised target was, and then without awaiting confirmation of the identity, they took it on themselves to attack. When the vehicles they had every reason to believe were 'friendlies' directly signalled them in the provisioned for manner, they carried right on attacking.

Just when I think your desperate attempts to ignore reality could get no more surprising, you pull another bunny out of your magical tin-foil hat.

I hope you people know the British column was actually using flares which indicate them to planes as allies, the US pilots were unexperienced reservists with no combat experience.

This entire issue lies with the fact that the DoD did want to release the tapes of the tragic attack. They were leaked to a UK newspaper (The Sun - a tabloid...unbelievably!) and that forced the release of edited footage.

The documentation from the DoD inquiry was also censored I understand.

Now. Cast your minds back to the first Gulf war. There were a number of friendly fire incidents involving US attacks on friendlies. The most deadly being an attack on a British Army unit encamped in the desert. 9 died. The Americans treated that inquiry by the British the same as they have treated this one.

In that same conflict there was another friendly fire incident. A US helicopter took out some US tanks. Guess what. That footage was shown on the news. It was not restricted. It has been shown numerous times on news programmes and documentaries.

I know proper chain of command. I know who falls under whose jurisdiction. These pilots are Americans who follow the US chain of command. These are Americans who fall under the American Uniform Code of Military Justice. That means, they are investigated by the USAF's investigative board. The board found no basis for a charge and thus, C-A-S-E C-L-O-S-E-D!


The issue is about politics between two allies. I know that the current agreements between NATO countries work like that. That is one of the things that make me say that those agreements MUST be changed, as such line of conduct is an insult to public opinion and certitudo iuris. At a political level, of course. The military are supposed to obey what the government and the laws say. Hence, they carry no responsibility for such a decision. The politicians do, however.

Reality displays a proven left-wing bias and can therefore be safely ignored in favour of right-wing punditry and crackpot conspiracies.

I have no idea what this thread is about, but I wanted to steal your post position. :p

Just when I think your desperate attempts to ignore reality could get no more surprising, you pull another bunny out of your magical tin-foil hat.

Reality displays a proven left-wing bias and can therefore be safely ignored in favour of right-wing punditry and crackpot conspiracies.

Um could it be because he did not slow down for a checkpoint?

Yes, this is what the US military said. The italian part said that there was supposed to be no checkpoint there, and that the checkpoint didn't signal to stop, or fire warning shots either.
But the real problem is that the investigators of the italian MP (Carabinieri) were denied by the US military a valid recognition of the evidence, and also weren't allowed to talk with the US soldiers that were manning that checkpoint. That isn't what I would call "showing respect to an ally". It looks more like "showing a colony its proper place".
I think that Italy should stop accepting such behaviour - and it is a fault of italian politics to allow the US to behave like that. Expecially, since our constitution says that alliances and international treatises must conform to the criterion of equality between the parts of the agreement.

I look forward to your defense the day a US pilot 'accidently' drops bombs on a US school.

THAT would probably result in a court martial.

They caused ALL of the deaths and suffering, and you think it's fair that they only paid 75%, and only because the injured parties were members of NATO?
You've got a very wrapped sense of justice.

Treaty obligations. It required us to pay 75% and that is what we paid. All in accordance to treaty. Do not like it, take it up with those who made and signed the treaty.

No, they had been ordered to fly to the bunker, but on their way something distracted them and they stopped for some shits and giggles.

:rolleyes:

They were not firing on the bunker because they got side-tracked on the way and figured they'd fire on something they didnt have orders to fire on, even though they had no reason to believe it was the enemy and every reason to believe it was their ally.

Coroner is that you? You have no idea what they were thinking so stop pretending that you do.

I hope you people know the British column was actually using flares which indicate them to planes as allies, the US pilots were unexperienced reservists with no combat experience.

Twenty Years is hardly what I call inexperienced. :rolleyes:

Twenty Years is hardly what I call inexperienced. :rolleyes:

How much actual combat experience?

There is a slight difference between exercises and being in a real theatre of war you know.

The issue is about politics between two allies. I know that the current agreements between NATO countries work like that. That is one of the things that make me say that those agreements MUST be changed, as such line of conduct is an insult to public opinion and certitudo iuris. At a political level, of course. The military are supposed to obey what the government and the laws say. Hence, they carry no responsibility for such a decision. The politicians do, however.

And all military personnel are answerable to their own proper chain of command. Hence, this issue as already been settled apparently as the review board labled it a tragic accident and thus no court martial.

Yes, this is what the US military said. The italian part said that there was supposed to be no checkpoint there, and that the checkpoint didn't signal to stop, or fire warning shots either.

Which the review board indicated that the Italians did not signal the Americans that were there that one of their own was coming through. This has been hashed and rehashed on this board. Go look it up.

But the real problem is that the investigators of the italian MP (Carabinieri) were denied by the US military a valid recognition of the evidence, and also weren't allowed to talk with the US soldiers that were manning that checkpoint. That isn't what I would call "showing respect to an ally". It looks more like "showing a colony its proper place".

We have our own rules and procedures. They were followed and the soldiers at the 'point followed all standard operating procedures according to the review board.

I think that Italy should stop accepting such behaviour - and it is a fault of italian politics to allow the US to behave like that. Expecially, since our constitution says that alliances and international treatises must conform to the criterion of equality between the parts of the agreement.

The Italians have zero jurisdiction over US military personnel in a combat zone.

How much actual combat experience?

There is a slight difference between exercises and being in a real theatre of war you know.

Indeed but that is why they train constently.

Treaty obligations. It required us to pay 75% and that is what we paid. All in accordance to treaty. Do not like it, take it up with those who made and signed the treaty.

Meaning if those deaths had occured in, say, Japan, the US would not even have partially recompensated the relatives of the victims, as well as not bringing to justice those who killed them.

You are right, people who have the US as allies don't need any enemies any more.

Indeed but that is why they train constently.

So are you going to answer my question?

So are you going to answer my question?

Of course he won't. He never does

Meaning if those deaths had occured in, say, Japan, the US would not even have partially recompensated the relatives of the victims, as well as not bringing to justice those who killed them.

You are right, people who have the US as allies don't need any enemies any more.

Now that depends on wether or not we hand them over to the Japanese for trial. We've done that before.

Indeed but that is why they train constently.

Well it does not appear to be very effective training.

Now that depends on wether or not we hand them over to the Japanese for trial. We've done that before.

It doesn't seem to happen any more, though. These days, the US government and army seem to mostly contend themselves with withholding evidence until the affair disappears from the news...

It doesn't seem to happen any more, though. These days, the US government and army seem to mostly contend themselves with withholding evidence until the affair disappears from the news...

We have a SOFA agreement with Japan. However, this incident took place in a combat zone. Since it took place in a combat zone and not on British, Italian, or whatever country's territory, they are under American Jurisdiction. I've been saying this before but then again, no one listens. Alwell. That's an internet chat room for ya.

It doesn't seem to happen any more, though. These days, the US government and army seem to mostly contend themselves with withholding evidence until the affair disappears from the news...

And theres the problem. What Corny is doing is quoting regulations and treatyes stating that the US government has no legal requirement to hand over evidence or co-operate with other nation's investigations.

Whilst this may be true (and I have yet to see him prove it) what he is failing to address, and what everyone else is trying to impress upon him, is the moral and political obligations involved in being an ally. He, along with the US government, will refuse to accept that by refusing to co-operate fully with the inquest into the death of L/Cpl Hull, despite a personal promise from President Bush to his grieving mother, they are irrepairably damaging their already tenous credibility with the British public and the rest of the world, and starting to damage their own reputation within the British armed forces, an extremely dangerous situation when conducting joint operations with said forces.

Now that depends on wether or not we hand them over to the Japanese for trial. We've done that before.

Really? When and where?

We have a SOFA agreement with Japan. However, this incident took place in a combat zone. Since it took place in a combat zone and not on British, Italian, or whatever country's territory, they are under American Jurisdiction. I've been saying this before but then again, no one listens. Alwell. That's an internet chat room for ya.

Ah. So the guys who killed 20 people in Italy were in a combat zone, too, then?

Ah. So the guys who killed 20 people in Italy were in a combat zone, too, then?

:D

He'll now say they wern't but that the incident was covered by the NATO treaty. See what I said above about political and moral obligations.

:rolleyes:



Coroner is that you? You have no idea what they were thinking so stop pretending that you do.It's all a matter of record, specifically the voice recording of the pilots at the time of the incident, where they clearly state that there are no known enemy movements in the area and that they really dont know who they are about to fire on, and further that it could be 'friendlies'.
Tell me, is this certainty you have of your position founded on a complete ignorance as to what was said by the pilots themselves at the time (as revealed in the recording of the incident)? Because it's hard to believe from what you say that you have any idea whatsoever as to the readily available facts of the matter.

Ah. So the guys who killed 20 people in Italy were in a combat zone, too, then?

No they weren't but they were on a training mission from my understanding and depending on the word of the SOFA agreement, would probably fall under the purview of the US and not Italy.

THAT would probably result in a court martial.

Uh huh. So US soldier inflicts US casualties and goes to jail. US soldier inflicts casualties on US allies and "it's an accident". Let's see if the reverse holds true.

British warplanes 'accidentally' bomb US base. They claim an error. British tribunal declares in their favor.

The Italians have zero jurisdiction over US military personnel in a combat zone.

Thereby, if Italian secret service agents put a couple of holes in a US commander in combat zone, the US has zero jurisdiction over said agents.

So they were shooting at an enemy bunker with friendlies in the area? Yea I bet they opened fired if that bunker was an enemy one. So now if they were indeed firing at an enemy bunker and the bomb hit the Brits, that proves that it is indeed an accident as the USAF investigative board stated.

Thing is the British where miles away and they wern't bombed-they wehre straffed, twice. A bunker isn't attacked by strfing is it?

Uh huh. So US soldier inflicts US casualties and goes to jail. US soldier inflicts casualties on US allies and "it's an accident". Let's see if the reverse holds true.

British warplanes 'accidentally' bomb US base. They claim an error. British tribunal declares in their favor.

If the British think it was an accident after their investigation, then it would be an accident.

If the British think it was an accident after their investigation, then it would be an accident.

Saudi Arabia declares the attacks on the WTC were a result of an accident.

Happy?

Good. How dare anyone not take their word for it! Totally unreasonable.

Saudi Arabia declares the attacks on the WTC were a result of an accident.

Yea right :rolleyes:

Yea right :rolleyes:

What? That's not good enough for you?

But you just said you'd accept the findings of the Brits if they bombed a US airbase.

Kind of contradicting yourself here.

What? That's not good enough for you?

But you just said you'd accept the findings of the Brits if they bombed a US airbase.

Kind of contradicting yourself here.

The highjackers were not part of the Saudi Military. We are talking military here Neesika. We are not talking about civilian crimes.

The highjackers were not part of the Saudi Military. We are talking military here Neesika. We are not talking about civilian crimes.

Say the Saudi's admitted the hijackers WERE covert military ops.

Is it different now?

Say the Saudi's admitted the hijackers WERE covert military ops.

Is it different now?

If they came out and say that, Saudi Arabia would not have a government today.

If they came out and say that, Saudi Arabia would not have a government today.

Answer the fucking question.

Answer the fucking question.

I did. If the Saudi Government had a covert team do 9/11 and it was made public, there would be a war.

I did. If the Saudi Government had a covert team do 9/11 and it was made public, there would be a war.

Wiggle wiggle, little worm....

You miss the point of the question on purpose. Let's try again. Saudi Arabia admits that the hijackers were covert ops...but somehow, it was all an accident, they never intended to attack the WTC.

You don't accept that? On what grounds exactly?

If the US can unilaterally 'close the case' on bombing Brits to hell, and the Brits (according to you) could unilaterally 'close the case' on bombing yanks to hell...why can't the Saudis rule the attacks as a mistake and have you simply abide by that ruling? What gives you the right to question their findings?

Wiggle wiggle, little worm....

You miss the point of the question on purpose. Let's try again. Saudi Arabia admits that the hijackers were covert ops...but somehow, it was all an accident, they never intended to attack the WTC.

You don't accept that? On what grounds exactly?

If the US can unilaterally 'close the case' on bombing Brits to hell, and the Brits (according to you) could unilaterally 'close the case' on bombing yanks to hell...why can't the Saudis rule the attacks as a mistake and have you simply abide by that ruling? What gives you the right to question their findings?

Fuck the rules, he's got green hair!

Oh surprise, surprise, Corny avoided the question again. "Too busy" of course. No worries, I'll pose it to him the next time he shows up in this thread.

Wiggle wiggle, little worm....

You miss the point of the question on purpose. Let's try again. Saudi Arabia admits that the hijackers were covert ops...but somehow, it was all an accident, they never intended to attack the WTC.

You don't accept that? On what grounds exactly?

If the US can unilaterally 'close the case' on bombing Brits to hell, and the Brits (according to you) could unilaterally 'close the case' on bombing yanks to hell...why can't the Saudis rule the attacks as a mistake and have you simply abide by that ruling? What gives you the right to question their findings?

Because there is a big difference between military accidents and intentional attacks by civil authorities. The latter being an act of war. Accidents happen in war and most of us accept that fact. They are tragedies yes but accidents none the less for the most part. It is not like they went out of their way to bomb allied forces intentionally. If they did it on purpose which can't be proven, then I'd be yelling for a fucking court martial and the death sentence. However, the board that governs actions such as this has indeed ruled it an accident based on facts.

The coroner here has no jurisdiction in this case. I noticed that the British Military is not talking about it much. I guess they also consider the matter closed. This is indeed a tragedy. A tragedy that should not have occured but a tragedy none the less. It is time for everyone to move on.

Indeed but that is why they train constently.

Corneliu should you be telling us that!! The coroner specifically asked for the training records but these were not forth coming. By you telling us this you are saying maore then the US military said to the Coroner.

It is my understanding that the pilots were not trained sufficiently to be able to distinguish between missiles and an orange panel, to recognise the agreed coalition friendly signal flares to follow their own procedures for the engagement.

A description of what pilots from the same squadron said should be happening can be seen in this interview conducted a week after the killing.

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

The methodology seems haphazard and certainly unclear.

Corneliu should you be telling us that!! The coroner specifically asked for the training records but these were not forth coming. By you telling us this you are saying maore then the US military said to the Coroner.

That's because the coroner does not need them. Get off it. This was purely a military accident and the military has jurisdiction over this. Not the civilian authorities. In fact it was dealt with by the proper military authorities. Since it was, to me, its a closed case. If the british civil authorities who have zero jurisdiction want to continue this, they can but the US is not obligated to hand over anything that pertains to this as it was a military issue and not a civilian one.

Because there is a big difference between military accidents and intentional attacks by civil authorities. The latter being an act of war. Accidents happen in war and most of us accept that fact. They are tragedies yes but accidents none the less for the most part. It is not like they went out of their way to bomb allied forces intentionally. If they did it on purpose which can't be proven, then I'd be yelling for a XXXXX court martial and the death sentence. However, the board that governs actions such as this has indeed ruled it an accident based on facts.

The coroner here has no jurisdiction in this case. I noticed that the British Military is not talking about it much. I guess they also consider the matter closed. This is indeed a tragedy. A tragedy that should not have occured but a tragedy none the less. It is time for everyone to move on.

An accident is a truely unforeseeable event. This was not an accident the possibility of mistaken identity was well known. The dangers of firing weapons at vehicals is known. For these reasons identification proceudres were arranged.

The pilots for whatever reasons failed to act on these. This may or may not have been their fault it may have been due to negligence in training.

Retribution and punishment is not the issue the issue is being able to feel confident that the US military have learnt from this and taken action to reduce the likely hood of this happening. It is also that we need the US military to share information so its allies can take action to reduce this happening from their end. This is fundemental RISK management.

By ignoring the number of posts I have made on the issue of openess about training you show yourself to be less interested in protecting human life but rather in defending the indefensible.

The British military may be showing a stiff upper lip however all the signs are there that they are fairly despairing of this whole issue.
I do not know if a courts martial required I do know that it is important to be open about what happened.

Because there is a big difference between military accidents and intentional attacks by civil authorities. The latter being an act of war. Accidents happen in war and most of us accept that fact. They are tragedies yes but accidents none the less for the most part. It is not like they went out of their way to bomb allied forces intentionally. If they did it on purpose which can't be proven, then I'd be yelling for a fucking court martial and the death sentence. However, the board that governs actions such as this has indeed ruled it an accident based on facts.

The coroner here has no jurisdiction in this case. I noticed that the British Military is not talking about it much. I guess they also consider the matter closed. This is indeed a tragedy. A tragedy that should not have occured but a tragedy none the less. It is time for everyone to move on.

You still aren't answering the hypothetical. Yes, we notice. So once again, read that post over (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12445111&postcount=320), address it as it is phrased, and answer the fucking question.

You still aren't answering the hypothetical. Yes, we notice. So once again, read that post over (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12445111&postcount=320), address it as it is phrased, and answer the fucking question.

I already told you what would happen. They will not be believed and all support for Saudi Arabia will disappear. The future does not look pretty with that in mind.

That's because the coroner does not need them. Get off it. This was purely a military accident and the military has jurisdiction over this. Not the civilian authorities. In fact it was dealt with by the proper military authorities. Since it was, to me, its a closed case. If the british civil authorities who have zero jurisdiction want to continue this, they can but the US is not obligated to hand over anything that pertains to this as it was a military issue and not a civilian one.

It is not for you to decide what a British Coroner requires. Legally to carry out his role he did require these. Sorry that is British law.

You have already shown your ignorance in British legal issues. You never acknowledged the fact that for a considerable part of this thread you did not understand the role of the British coroner yet felt you could say what they could and could not do. A British Coroner has and within his legal right and responsibility found this to have been an unlawful killing. If you dont like that get your government to present information to allow the coroner to reach a different conclusion.

It is not for you to decide what a British oroner requires. Legally to carry out his role he did require these. Sorry that is British law.

And Americans do not fall under British Law. Ergo, they are not obligated to hand them over.

I already told you what would happen. They will not be believed and all support for Saudi Arabia will disappear. The future does not look pretty with that in mind.

But the US should be believed, unequivocally, and listened to when they 'close the case'.

Hypocritical much?

But the US should be believed, unequivocally, and listened to when they 'close the case'.

Hypocritical much?

:rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

Don't try to get out of your contradictions with a lame-ass rolling-eye smiley.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander. If Italian troops were to bomb the shit out of a bunch of US soldiers and then go, 'oops! Accident, case closed', I very much doubt you would actually support them in refusing to cooperate with any US investigation into the same incident.

But you like to pretend you would, for the sake of consistency. Then you go and fuck it up by saying that if Saudi Arabia ruled the WTC attacks a military mistake, it would be totally different.

Turn thy rolly-eyes inward.

And Americans do not fall under British Law. Ergo, they are not obligated to hand them over.

Not obligated... except by the basic tenets of probity, morality and having an alliance.

And Americans do not fall under British Law. Ergo, they are not obligated to hand them over.:headbang: :headbang:

If you mean by "them" the pilots you will note that is not what I am talking about. I have suggested that the coroners investigation was blocked by a lack of production of information by the USA authorities. I do feel that I am hitting my head against a brick wall as you try to have an argument with me about the pilots.

You can not complain about the decision and conclusion of the coroner if the USA was not prepared to share information which might have caused the coroner to reach a different conclusion.


This thread is called "When your allies don't co-operate with legal process" there is absolutely no doubt the USA did not co-operate with the Coroner carrying out his legal duty. The question is what should any nation do when its purpoited allies blocks and obstructs its legal processes.

Does anyone here not realise that by not identifying the armored column as friendly via it's red flares (I believe, dont quote me on the color) and subsequently attacking it, those pilots made a massive error of judgement, just as the coroner came to the conclusion of.

Does anyone here not realise that by not identifying the armored column as friendly via it's red flares (I believe, dont quote me on the color) and subsequently attacking it, those pilots made a massive error of judgement, just as the coroner came to the conclusion of.

Yes, but I think everyone's busy trying to deal with the Corny Hammer of Frustration 2.0

Not obligated... except by the basic tenets of probity, morality and having an alliance.

Thats the bit! Thats it! Thats the bit you keep ignoring Corny! Remember it? Its been mentioned once or twenty times in the past few days? Do we get an answer yet? Do we? :D

Does anyone here not realise that by not identifying the armored column as friendly via it's red flares (I believe, dont quote me on the color) and subsequently attacking it, those pilots made a massive error of judgement, just as the coroner came to the conclusion of.

A massive error of judgement does not equal criminal action as the coroner is trying to perpetuate.

A massive error of judgement does not equal criminal action as the coroner is trying to perpetuate.

That amount of negligence probably amounts to manslaughter.

That amount of negligence probably amounts to manslaughter.

To some probably but in this case, no as it was ruled a tragic accident.

A massive error of judgement does not equal criminal action as the coroner is trying to perpetuate.

a massive error in judgment is the definition of negligence.

To some probably but in this case, no as it was ruled a tragic accident.

I think we all know this 'verdict' came from the White House for a political reason, nothing else.

Thats the bit! Thats it! Thats the bit you keep ignoring Corny! Remember it? Its been mentioned once or twenty times in the past few days? Do we get an answer yet? Do we? :D

We've played this game many a time before Corny, but I'll keep asking till you answer. Ready yet?

I think we all know this 'verdict' came from the White House for a political reason, nothing else.

Now prove it.

Now prove it.

//military justice

//military justice

Prove that the "'verdict' came from the White House for a political reason".

Prove that the "'verdict' came from the White House for a political reason".

Unless hes a White House insider thats pretty unlikely isn't it.

Oh BTW, fancy answering my question yet?

Let's just hope that the British take from this exactly how valued
they are as friends and allies and bear that in mind for all future dealings
with the U.S.

A massive error of judgement does not equal criminal action as the coroner is trying to perpetuate.

If I make a massive error of judgement while driving and get someone killed, I have caused death by dangerous driving, which is a criminal offence. Is that hard to understand?

Unless hes a White House insider thats pretty unlikely isn't it.

Oh BTW, fancy answering my question yet?

Well obviously yes. But what I meant was that military law isn't exactly free from political interference.

:headbang: :headbang:

If you mean by "them" the pilots you will note that is not what I am talking about. I have suggested that the coroners investigation was blocked by a lack of production of information by the USA authorities. I do feel that I am hitting my head against a brick wall as you try to have an argument with me about the pilots.

You can not complain about the decision and conclusion of the coroner if the USA was not prepared to share information which might have caused the coroner to reach a different conclusion.


This thread is called "When your allies don't co-operate with legal process" there is absolutely no doubt the USA did not co-operate with the Coroner carrying out his legal duty. The question is what should any nation do when its purpoited allies blocks and obstructs its legal processes.

Look, Corny, look! It's the post you've been avoiding, that neatly summarises the point you've been side-stepping with ignorance and fallacies all thread! The fact you seem to be deliberately avoiding the crux of the matter (And here it is again: Why didn't the US turn over their evidence to the British, since the pilots were innocent anyway, so we could finish the investigation? What do you do when your allies block the legal process of your country?) speaks volumes about your position.

Which the review board indicated that the Italians did not signal the Americans that were there that one of their own was coming through. This has been hashed and rehashed on this board. Go look it up.
We have our own rules and procedures. They were followed and the soldiers at the 'point followed all standard operating procedures according to the review board.

I was merely quoting what the two involved parts said. The review board is made by US officials only - the italian part refused to sign its papers. Hence, there IS a controversy. Go read the newspapers...

The Italians have zero jurisdiction over US military personnel in a combat zone.
But appears that the US military have the right to fire on italian officers.:rolleyes:

Again: I'm not saying that the US violated the treatises. I'm saying that Italy was wrong to accept that treatises; it would make sense to reject them and negotiate new agreements. This is the politicians' job.

Btw: in Italy we have a saying for people who overreact when their ideas get debated, as if they were blamed of something. "Coda di paglia" - literally "straw tail" - that is, he who "catches fire" easily and for no apparent reason, is hiding something... . Or, if you prefer, "excusatio non petita, accusatio manifesta".
;)

And theres the problem. What Corny is doing is quoting regulations and treatyes stating that the US government has no legal requirement to hand over evidence or co-operate with other nation's investigations.
Whilst this may be true (and I have yet to see him prove it) what he is failing to address, and what everyone else is trying to impress upon him, is the moral and political obligations involved in being an ally. He, along with the US government, will refuse to accept that by refusing to co-operate fully with the inquest into the death of L/Cpl Hull, despite a personal promise from President Bush to his grieving mother, they are irrepairably damaging their already tenous credibility with the British public and the rest of the world, and starting to damage their own reputation within the British armed forces, an extremely dangerous situation when conducting joint operations with said forces.

Correct me if I'm wrong: the US government has no legal requirement to hand over evidence or co-operate, but it also has no legal requirement to REFUSE to do so.
Hence, it is a free choice of the US government: hence, one can judge the attitude of the US government towards its allies by its free choice to co-operate or not.

Correct me if I'm wrong: the US government has no legal requirement to hand over evidence or co-operate, but it also has no legal requirement to REFUSE to do so.
Hence, it is a free choice of the US government: hence, one can judge the attitude of the US government towards its allies by its free choice to co-operate or not.

Everyone is free to judge free choice. If I was the British PM I would be giving serious consideration to how the "special relationship" works.

The US government could make the free choice to leave a big pile of steaming poo outside the British embassy in Washington, but we would be free to react to that too.

The US government could make the free choice to leave a big pile of steaming poo outside the British embassy in Washington, but we would be free to react to that too.

Exactly! I wonder why leaving poo outside the british (or italian) embassy would lead to severe official protests that very likely would make the US government clean up, and refusing cooperation in an investigation doesn't.

A massive error of judgement does not equal criminal action as the coroner is trying to perpetuate.

Again you try this line?

Say it with me. Criminally negligent homicide.

Goddamn right 'massive error of judgment' = criminal action.

Again you try this line?

Say it with me. Criminally negligent homicide.

Goddamn right 'massive error of judgment' = criminal action.

I'll take the review board over the coroner.

I'll take the review board over the coroner.

What is this problem you have with the coroner?

You are aware that the Oxford coroners court carries out the inquests into pretty much all British military personel killed and as such have a fair amount of expertise in the area?

What is this problem you have with the coroner?

You are aware that the Oxford coroners court carries out the inquests into pretty much all British military personel killed and as such have a fair amount of expertise in the area?

Except when they labled something as criminal when all it was was an accident.

Except when they labled something as criminal when all it was was an accident.

Dude are you a lawyer?

Arthris101 is and Neesika is training to be one and they both say it can be criminal and an expert in investigating deaths says that he thinks it is.

I think you're pretty outgunned here mate.

Dude are you a lawyer?

Arthris101 is and Neesika is training to be one and they both say it can be criminal and an expert in investigating deaths says that he thinks it is.

I think you're pretty outgunned here mate.

And are they trained in military law and how the military handles such things?

And are they trained in military law and how the military handles such things?

Are you?

Except when they labled something as criminal when all it was was an accident.

And around and around you go...

You simply take the opinion of the side you support over the side you don't, with no notice taken of the fact that your reasons for that support (it was an accident and an accident can't be criminal...oh, wait, that's totally untrue), (well the US said case closed, so case closed...but I wouldn't actually support that if it was say, Saudi Arabia claiming case closed etc) are total bullshit.

So why don't you just come out and say, you aren't basing your support on anything but your unsupported feeling that the US must be right on this by virtue of being the US alone.

Your legal 'arguments' in particular are unadulterated tripe.

And are they trained in military law and how the military handles such things?

Are you?

Edit; Damn, too slow.

Are you?

I've studied it and seen enough of it to know that, as far as I can see, the Review Board followed all SOPs to reach their decision not to take this to a court martial.

Except when they labled something as criminal when all it was was an accident.

so the US military should release the documents proving this that the coroner doenst have and allow their vindication. whats the problem?

oh right, you are arguing for the sake of it.

i would have no problem with the US having this attitude towords their 'protection' to a fault of their citizens if they didnt put so much pressure on other states to extradite their citizens to the US, legally or otherwise.

the US either involves itself in extradition freely and fairly or it doesnt.

so the US military should release the documents proving this that the coroner doenst have and allow their vindication. whats the problem?

The US does not have to do anything of the sort.

the US either involves itself in extradition freely and fairly or it doesnt.

OH and that's for civilians and not military personnel unless you can prove differently.

I've studied it and seen enough of it to know that, as far as I can see, the Review Board followed all SOPs to reach their decision not to take this to a court martial.

What qualification do you hold in US military law then?

Not being funny but I like to know the accreditation a chap holds in an area before I put any faith in his advice.

And are they trained in military law and how the military handles such things?

There is a separate system for military inquiries, and there are criminal and civil laws specific to military personnel...but there is no such thing a a 'military law' that is apart and separate from the rest of the law. Military law is just another facet of the entire system. The standard of care in civil cases reflects the particular training and situation military personnel find themselves in. As well, criminally negligent homicide applies as much to someone in the military as it does to some Joe Schmoe on the street. Clearly the circumstances of this CRIME are going to be different than the situation Joe Schmoe might find himself in...but that doesn't give folks in the military a pass.

This doesn't surprise me. The USAF seems to have a peculiar problem in which they can't tell the difference between British units in action, and Iraqi ones. I've often wondered why that is, especially after the number of British soldiers killed by Americans in both Gulf Wars...

...and I expect an apology for the accident would be completely out of the question, or the files on the incident being released, if only to the British Government?

What qualification do you hold in US military law then?

Since I've been around it for 24 years and have come to respect this thing called the UCMJ....

As long as the review board followed all procedures, I'm going to except their judgement as they are the ones responsible to actually bringing this to a court martial hearing if they felt it was deserved.

I've studied it and seen enough of it to know that, as far as I can see, the Review Board followed all SOPs to reach their decision not to take this to a court martial.

You've studied it? Really? Amazing! So you can 'study' something in total isolation, without understanding the fundamental basis for what you are attempting to learn? That is a true talent.

Because you have demonstrated, unequivocally, that you have absolutely no understanding of the legal system. And once again, military law does not exist as some sort of odd creature apart, and distinct from that legal system.

So your claims that you have studied military law, in your mind, are no doubt true. But it is quite clear that you lack understanding, and your studies have been for naught.

There is a separate system for military inquiries, and there are criminal and civil laws specific to military personnel...but there is no such thing a a 'military law' that is apart and separate from the rest of the law. Military law is just another facet of the entire system. The standard of care in civil cases reflects the particular training and situation military personnel find themselves in. As well, criminally negligent homicide applies as much to someone in the military as it does to some Joe Schmoe on the street. Clearly the circumstances of this CRIME are going to be different than the situation Joe Schmoe might find himself in...but that doesn't give folks in the military a pass.

Your right that they are not given a pass but the military has this thing called JAG which is the Judge Advocate General and they are responsible for prosecuting and defending all military court martials and military pre-trials. They also do investigating as well to prove that the person is either innocent or guilty. They also have to rely on review boards when dealing with combat deaths to see if it is prosecutable. In this case, the review board is not pushing for a court martial. Why? Because it was a tragic accident.

Since I've been around it for 24 years and have come to respect this thing called the UCMJ....Nice try. Every citizen in your nation has 'been around' the legal system there for the entirety of their life.

That by no means they understand it. Legal understanding doesn't occur by some bizarre process of osmosis.

As long as the review board followed all procedures, I'm going to except their judgement as they are the ones responsible to actually bringing this to a court martial hearing if they felt it was deserved.Ah, you're going to except their judgment? Exclude it? Good, I was hoping you'd come around.

Since I've been around it for 24 years and have come to respect this thing called the UCMJ....

As long as the review board followed all procedures, I'm going to except their judgement as they are the ones responsible to actually bringing this to a court martial hearing if they felt it was deserved.

So none then.

Good, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Out of interest, how will you know that the board followed all procedures unless they release the files?

Sorry accept. To many things going on here. Not to mention, lunch! LOL

So none then.

Good, I'm glad we cleared that up.

Out of interest, how will you know that the board followed all procedures unless they release the files?

Good point however, I believe that they did. If they did not, then I'd be the first one calling for a full scale investigation of the review board.

Your right that they are not given a pass but the military has this thing called JAG which is the Judge Advocate General and they are responsible for prosecuting and defending all military court martials and military pre-trials. They also do investigating as well to prove that the person is either innocent or guilty. They also have to rely on review boards when dealing with combat deaths to see if it is prosecutable. In this case, the review board is not pushing for a court martial. Why? Because it was a tragic accident.

Here is the crux of the problem most of us have with this.

1) This did not only involve US personnel.
2) Since military personnel of another nation were involved, their military investigators should have some say in the outcome.

To me, this is a classic conflict of jurisdiction. See Corny, what you keep arguing is that one jurisdiction takes precedence over another. But that is never as cut and dry as you seem to believe it is.

You, as a US citizen, commit fraud while living in Germany, the fraud being actually perpetrated in Canada. Who tries you? Which rules apply? There is not some sort of nebulous international law you can appeal to, there is instead jurisdictional precedence. Some lawyers spend their entire careers sorting out these jurisdictional conflicts...why? Because the crimes you have committed cross jurisdictional boundaries.

Clearly the standards in place are not going to be set by Iraqi law. But considering the US and Britain are allies, it should not be the case that one country gets to declare jurisdictional supremacy when there has been a incident between personnel from two different allied nations.

It is not automatically the case that 'the laws of my nation apply when I commit an action that merits investigation'.

Good point however, I believe that they did. If they did not, then I'd be the first one calling for a full scale investigation of the review board.

So why aren't you clamouring for the release of the files then? You know, just in case and all in the interest of ensuring justice is always done?

So why aren't you clamouring for the release of the files then? You know, just in case and all in the interest of ensuring justice is always done?

You're one o' them freedom-hatin' liberals, ain'tcha? Asking reasonable questions and expecting a reasonable reply...

You're one o' them freedom-hatin' liberals, ain'tcha? Asking reasonable questions and expecting a reasonable reply...

No, don't worry, no of us have unrealistic expectations of Corny.

No, don't worry, no of us have unrealistic expectations of Corny.

I'm surprised he's still logged on, he's usually cut and run by this point.

Maybe he's getting tougher in his old age.

No, don't worry, no of us have unrealistic expectations of Corny.

Yes, the same here. I notice he avoided my previous question; he seems to have a habit of that...

I'm surprised he's still logged on, he's usually cut and run by this point.

Maybe he's getting tougher in his old age.

He said he's going to lunch.

Sometimes NS keep you logged in even after you've left.

The US does not have to do anything of the sort.

we know it doesnt have to, but equally it doesnt have to not do so.

they are your best friends and allies. at a political level, its all one way with the relationship and calls into question even further how wise it is to ally with the US as strongly if there is no quid pro quo.

if nothing more you could simply do the decent thing, give closure to the families of those who died in iraq. its basic respect for fallen comrades. if the US military are that confident nothing untoword happened, why cover it up?

Good point however, I believe that they did. If they did not, then I'd be the first one calling for a full scale investigation of the review board.

See, here's the problem. You say you'd be calling for an investigation but you're not because you believe they did, but you have no way of verifying that because they won't release that info. One would think, if we are to believe you that you'd be "the first one calling for a full scale investigation of the review board" that you'd ALSO be the first one to call for them to release that information, to clear up ANY possibility of impropriety.

you believe that improperly handling this investigation would be a "wrong thing" why in the WORLD do you resist any efforts to determine whether or not they improperly handled it, ESPECIALLY in light of this coroner's statement that it was. One would also think that if improperly handling it is so wrong, and the spectre of this coroner's report looming suggest that they MIGHT have done it wrong, you'd be demanding proof that it was done correctly, not arguing against any efforts to get that proof.

That's how intellectual honesty works. Intellectual honesty DOESN'T work by saying "if they did something wrong, I would call them on it, but I'm going to believe them that they did something right and not require any verification, even in the face of allegations that they did something wrong"

See what I'm getting at? You believe they did, but you have no way of verifying they did, because they aren't releasing it. You believe that if they didn't do it it would be wrong, but are quashing any efforts to demonstrate that they did, because you think they did and therefore no proof is necessary.

So you essentially believe without proof.

Strange, isn't that the very thing you attacked the coroner for doing?

Since I've been around it for 24 years and have come to respect this thing called the UCMJ....

As long as the review board followed all procedures, I'm going to except their judgement as they are the ones responsible to actually bringing this to a court martial hearing if they felt it was deserved.

What...You have been a serviceman for 24 year?

Pray tell more....