No court martial for US pilots who killed four Canadians - Page 2

Tingkai · March 21, 2003, 02:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

What I don't understand is the process. I thought the hearing was like a prelim where the court decides if there is enough evidence to warrant a trial. This ended up being a trial of innocence and guilt.

No it didn't. The trial was dismissed and sent to a non-judicial proceeding. That isn't a determinaton of innocence and guilt.

I haven't seen any statements saying there was a lack of evidence. The reports I have seen say that the hearing determined that the pilots were not guilty of manslaughter.

It seems like an odd system to me.

Asher · March 21, 2003, 02:56

As the news here explained it, the case isn't overwith yet. It's now being sent up the food chain...

Imran Siddiqui · March 21, 2003, 03:03

Quote:

I haven't seen any statements saying there was a lack of evidence. The reports I have seen say that the hearing determined that the pilots were not guilty of manslaughter.

If the pilots were ruled not guilty, then the case would not be sent along (that would violate 'double jeopardy')

notyoueither · March 21, 2003, 03:04

Sent along to where?

Asher · March 21, 2003, 03:08

Superior officers.

Tingkai · March 21, 2003, 03:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
As the news here explained it, the case isn't overwith yet. It's now being sent up the food chain...

It's not really being passed up the food chain. A decision has been made and now someone has to sign it off.

The ruling could be overturned, but I doubt that will happen.

I still don't understand why there was no trial. There was enough evidence to justify a trial. There were prosecutors saying these men should be put on trial.

So there should be a trial to determine innocence or guilt.

It's all getting swept under the carpet.

Dis · March 21, 2003, 03:55

Some people seem to be so anti-military they can't accept that mistakes happen.

why are people so anti-military?

What about when school bus drivers fall asleep? You don't see liberal whackos prosecuting them. they get way with murder!!

Imran Siddiqui · March 21, 2003, 04:02

Quote:

It's not really being passed up the food chain. A decision has been made and now someone has to sign it off.

WHERE are you getting this from? Really?

There was no trial, the case was dismissed and sent to another court (the non-judicial proceeding), who WILL decide on guilt or innocence.

Imran Siddiqui · March 21, 2003, 04:08

Like MtG said:

Quote:

What is being said, in effect, is that a non-judicial proceeding will handle this, rather than a court-martial.

That will most likely mean demotion, forfeiture of pay and benefits, and the pilots separation from military service.

Pekka · March 21, 2003, 04:29

Wow, looks like I'm in the minority who thinks that they should be punished. Not for murder of course, but involuntary manslaughter or something like that (I don't know how you call it). Key factor here being that they disobeyd orders, which should be very serious thing to begin with. My sense of justice goes that if you disobey clear orders, you pay the price. It's unfortunate, and accident, but if they had obeyd orders like they should have, nothing would have happened. I understand they thought they were in danger, but in reality they weren't. I wonder what kind of practice the canucks where doing that they thought they were being fired at? AA guns? Unlikely... It is unfortunate and they didn't mean to do it, but I don't believe it makes it ok to do that. Because they disobeyd orders. If they didn't have orders, then it would have been ok by me, but they did what they did.. on their own decisions, therefore taking the risk for possible consequences. They could have just take more hight and escape, than to just engage in battle with unknown troops and with unknown everything.

If this is the case, when ever I think I'm in danger in combat zone and I had orders not to engage and I was unsure, I could just unleash hell if I had the option to escape, and then get away with it? At least punishment for not obeying orders, at least.
But this is my opinion and it doesn't make it so.

Pekka · March 21, 2003, 04:31

But no, no charges for murders or things like that. It still was a combat zone. Maybe dishonorable discharge without any benefits etc is in order. I would not necessarily seek for prison time, because it is still understandable these things happen.

Dis · March 21, 2003, 04:33

dishonorable discharges aren't given lightly to officers I doubt it would happen.

In any case these guys careers are toast I'm sure.

Pekka · March 21, 2003, 04:35

This case is not very light?

Toast, I'm sure.. they did drop their loads on allied troops, I'm not sure what dishonorable discharge means in reality there, but I think it's still in order. Though I'm not the one to judge. I don't even know all facts. Basically I'm just running my mouth until someone shuts me up

.

But facts are that they disobeyd orders, and people got killed.

Pekka · March 21, 2003, 04:38

But I feel for these pilots too. They made an honest mistake which costed the lives of allied troops, they must feel like crap for a long time. And it was an accident too. I'm sure if I drive over someone and someone gets killed, I'll be having some tough problems and hard time even without punishment.

Dis · March 21, 2003, 04:45

I don't know all the facts either

I haven't even paid attention since the even actually happened.

And I'm not sure how the law works here. I do know how military law goes. Although it is slighly different for officers. I was enlisted, and most enlisted just get NJP.

Tingkai · March 21, 2003, 04:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

It's not really being passed up the food chain. A decision has been made and now someone has to sign it off.

There was no trial, the case was dismissed and sent to another court (the non-judicial proceeding), who WILL decide on guilt or innocence.

From what I understand, they cannot be charged with manslaughter in a non-judicial proceeding.

Of course you are right in saying there was no trial. That's the whole point!

There was no proper trial. There simply a hearing with some of the evidence provided. This hearing then decided that the pilots should not be charged with manslaughter, which is essentially the same as saying they are not guilty without saying they're innocent. It becomes a crazy situation.

I could understand if the hearing said there is not enough evidence for a trial, but apparently that was not the case.

Dauphin · March 21, 2003, 07:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Zkribbler
I was talking about this case with a deputy district attorney friend of mine awhile back, and I asked her, "Isn't it self defense if you kill someone because you have a mistaken but reasonable belief that he is trying to kill you?" She thought for a moment, and said, "Yeah."

That seems to me to be what happened here. The pilots saw the Canadians firing their weapons and thought they were being fired upon. They were acting in self defense.

It was a tragic accident, to be sure.

But it was just that--an accident. It's wasn't murder.

Is it still self-defence to kill someone because you have a mistaken but reasonable belief that he is trying to kill you, despite the fact that the chances of their doing so is remote the extreme?

Willem · March 21, 2003, 09:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Pekka

If this is the case, when ever I think I'm in danger in combat zone and I had orders not to engage and I was unsure, I could just unleash hell if I had the option to escape, and then get away with it? At least punishment for not obeying orders, at least.
But this is my opinion and it doesn't make it so.

I don't think anyone's advocating letting them off scot free, but being charged for murder, or even courtmartialed for that matter, is rather drastic. Especially since there was an obvious breakdown in communication from elsewhere. If they had been told that there were friendly troops in the area, don't you think that they would have responded differently? They were operating on the assumption that the only thing they could expect in the area was hostile activity, and responded instinctually in a way to protect themselves. If any one should be court-martialled it should be the person that neglected to inform them. He/she was the one that was clearly disobeying orders.

Arrian · March 21, 2003, 10:17

I think the military needs to have a look at their policy of handing out amphedimines to their pilots.

Further, these guys will likely be punished, but not all that severely, as MtG suggested.

Something needs to change, and the USAF certainly owes Canada an apology (dunno if they have apologized or not... did they?).

-Arrian

KrazyHorse · March 21, 2003, 10:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Asher
Oh God, we haven't gotten over this yet?

It was war, sh*t happens, friendly fire happens, don't charge the people with murder.

Yes you do, when the ****wits:

1) Take small-arms fire for AA fire
2) Are flying too low
3) Come back around for a second look (and a chance to drop their bombs), at which point they decide that they're in danger
4) Do (3) against a direct order to break the engagement

KrazyHorse · March 21, 2003, 10:33

Oh, and (5) accomplish all of the above in a well-known training area which has been in friendly hands for more than a month.

Ozz · March 21, 2003, 10:41

How long? 6, 9, year? drag it out and finish it when nobody's lookin' like a cheap magician's trick?

A timely apology and an investigation into it so it
wouldn't happen again would have been enough.
People make mistakes and accidents happen its
how you deal with them that counts. Don't care
if the pilots are punished, do care on how the
US government delays, and sidesteps responsiblity
for long periods of time.

Willem · March 21, 2003, 10:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger
Oh, and (5) accomplish all of the above in a well-known training area which has been in friendly hands for more than a month.

In a combat situation, it's potential suicide to make the presumption that the area has not been infiltrated by enemy forces. Especially when you're dealing with a foe that uses guerilla tactics.

KrazyHorse · March 21, 2003, 11:04

Willem, I'm not saying that you don't shoot back if somebody's shooting at you...

But the pilots' safest option was to break the engagment. And the bullets weren't even going in their direction.

By your logic they should just bomb any time they see gunfire.

They ****ed up big time. It wasn't just an "accident"; their reckless behaviour was main contributing factor.

KrazyHorse · March 21, 2003, 11:06

The screwed up on half a dozen points and ended up killing people.

Negligent homicide, or whatever the military uses to describe it.

Willem · March 21, 2003, 11:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Frogger

They ****ed up big time. It wasn't just an "accident"; their reckless behaviour was main contributing factor.

But it wasn't just them that screwed up! Why should they take all the heat for someone else's mistakes? Had they been clearly told that our troops were in the area, as they were supposed to have been, they would have reacted more cautiously.

Arrian · March 21, 2003, 11:32

Just a question: the investigation into the incident was a joint US-Canada operation, yes?

-Arrian

Pekka · March 21, 2003, 11:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Willem

I don't think anyone's advocating letting them off scot free, but being charged for murder, or even courtmartialed for that matter, is rather drastic. Especially since there was an obvious breakdown in communication from elsewhere. If they had been told that there were friendly troops in the area, don't you think that they would have responded differently? They were operating on the assumption that the only thing they could expect in the area was hostile activity, and responded instinctually in a way to protect themselves. If any one should be court-martialled it should be the person that neglected to inform them. He/she was the one that was clearly disobeying orders.

Yes, I agree with you. Charging with murder is too much.
I bet they won't get off the hook free, and that's the way it should be. Also I definitely do agree that the persons responsible for the communication and informing correct info and keeping them up to date should be in trouble for this as much as the pilots. There must be people whose responsibility is to keep these things working and obviously someone has failed.. if it's not sudden breakdown in equipment. As I said, I wouldn't suggest prison time.

Kontiki · March 21, 2003, 11:52

It seems that some people are mistaking this for the type of fratricide you see on the battlefield (eg: when the Americans mistakenly fired on British armored vehicles at night during the first Gulf War). As Frogger has pointed out here, the Canadians were training in a long-known training area (one in which the Americans had used as well), well away from hostilities and notified the Americans of the exercise. The pilots did not just react, they circled back and then attacked, when even US testimony during an earlier inquiry stated that they should have just left the area.

Again, this is not like fratricide in combat, it's more like US troops shooting at other US troops in their bases in Kuwait. There was no reason that the Canadians should have been confused with enemy troops. This isn't to say that all the blame should fall on the pilots, but neither can you dismiss this as "it's war, **** happens".

Willem · March 21, 2003, 12:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Kontiki
There was no reason that the Canadians should have been confused with enemy troops.

Why not? This is a battle with one side using guerilla tactics, zones of control are very porous in that type of situation. It would be folly to make presumptions otherwise. The standard procedure is that they would have been informed that friendly forces were in the area. They made the assumption that standard procedure was being followed and came to a decision based on that assumption.