Hearing Tuesday for U.S. pilots who killed Canadian troops

[furie]

BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, Louisiana (Reuters) -- A hearing to consider whether two U.S. pilots should face court martial for mistakenly killing Canadian troops in Afghanistan last year was set to begin on Tuesday.

At issue is whether Air National Guard pilots Majs. Harry Schmidt and William Umbach are criminals or military men who made a tragic error while on duty in the Afghan war.


<a href="http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/01/14/us.pilots.reut/index.html"> click here </a>

do you think friendly fire amounts to negligent homicide? Which is basically what they are being charged with.

<img src="http://tseery.homestead.com/files/simpsons.jpg" width=300 height=100>
Lighting up the New Year

[Captain Rooster]

Fratricide is one of the toughest issues facing the military today. Technology is wonderful but there is always a human being behind the trigger when the time to shoot needs to be determined.

These pilots were flying near Kandahar, they are National Guard pilots (which means they have far less up to date training as compared to active pilots), they were flying at night, and they were dealing with a unit from outside the normal chain of command (Canadian).

I personally have a hard time with crucifying these guys for acting in what they have said was a natural soldier's self defense instinct. If that instinct is deemed unlawful, then we are starting a precedent that will handcuff the decisions of military leaders. Accidents happen. War is blurry and incongruent--that needs to be considered.

Regardless, if these guys WERE given a specific order not to fire or a detailed brief including NFAs (No Fire Areas) then their careers need to be questioned. They should not be sent to jail for their actions. There was NO malicious intent, these guys were there as patriotic Americans trying to defend out safety, and they have expressed deep regret for and empathy for the families and units of the Canadian soldiers.

These guys should NOT go to jail for making a command decision in a combat zone. This was not equal to the decisions made at Mai Lai and there should be not comparison.




<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/roosterclawsanime.gif>



This message was edited by LTRooster on 1-14-03 @ 4:49 PM

[Abrasive Dean]

From the same article:
The case has angered many in the U.S. military who say that tragic accidents are an inevitable result of war. Supporters of the pilots believe the men were prosecuted to mollify the angry Canadian government.

In 1991 US pilots were responsible for the deaths of 50 US troops. They were also responsible for the deaths of 9 british soldiers and injuring a further 12. I do not recall this being widely reported or "retribution" being taken in the same fashion.

I do believe this to be more a failure of operations staff.

The AWACS aircraft operated by both US and UK air forces are supposed to provide, quite literally, an overview of the battle area and can "map out" the positions of both ground and airborne forces. It should have been possible to identify
"sides" and pass the information to the pilots.

Certainly the AWACS aircraft based out of RAF Waddington in England now have capabilities which exceed those of the ones used in the Gulf War(1) and indeed of that of their American counterparts. Hopefully these changes and the introduction of more sophisticated IFF (Identification Frend or Foe) transponders for troops will minimise these so-called "friendly-fire" instances in the coming conflict.

The pilots in the Canadian incident should only be penalised if it can be proven they were either, ordered not to attack or cannot prove that they were under "effective enemy fire" (in direct danger of their lives).

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/deanmcg/sig/sig.jpg">



This message was edited by Abrasive Dean on 1-14-03 @ 7:31 PM

[TheMojoPin]

It's active combat, so it's not really a criminal situation...I mean, I doubt they were conciously hunting for Canadians. I think they should be discharged, but not sent up on criminal charges.

<img src=http://img.ranchoweb.com/images/philex/mjpin1.gif>
VP #2 for the Coalition of Angry Micks, and the best goddamn American ever.
"You can tell some lies about the good times you've had/But I've kissed your mother twice and now I'm working on your dad..."

[Yerdaddy]

do you think friendly fire amounts to negligent homicide? Which is basically what they are being charged with.
I don't like the question. I don't think you can make a blanket judgement about friendly fire in general. Some friendly fire is a fact of modern warfare, but if it's the result of carelessness or oversealousness, then there has to be accountability. Like Rooster points out, this is a combat zone, and none of these guys wants to kill friendlies, so there's no reason to cry retribution in a case like this. But a blanket amnesty would not serve the professionalism of the military as a whole. Unless I hear otherwise, I'll trust that the military justice system is equipped to handle this, without bowing to political pressures or Canadian public opinion.

I have this article, but I don't think it's still on the web, so I'll post it whole. There are details that aren't in the current article. Note that it seems that there's still contention over whether the pilots were briefed about the Candian exercises.
[quote]washingtonpost.com
Joint Inquiry Blames U.S. Pilots
By Robert Burns
AP Military Writer
Friday, June 28, 2002; 12:34 PM

WASHINGTON -- A joint U.S.-Canadian inquiry into the mistaken bombing of Canadian troops in Afghanistan last spring concluded that two U.S. F-16 pilots failed to exercise proper caution, an American officer said Friday.

Marine Corps Lt. Gen. Michael DeLong, deputy commander of U.S. Central Command, told a news conference in Tampa, Fla., that the cause of the deadly accident was "the failure of the two pilots to exercise appropriate flight discipline."

He said the two pilots stand accused of "inappropriate use of lethal force." Any disciplinary action against the pilots is a matter to be considered by the Air Force, DeLong said.

DeLong declined to say what kind of disciplinary action was recommended by the investigation board.

Asked whether the F-16 pilots had been told in advance that the Canadian troops were conducting live-fire training in the area where the mistaken bombing occurred, DeLong declined to comment. "All pilots are briefed to every mission," he said.

In the Canadian report, Defence Minister John McCallum found "Canadian troops conducting the live-fire exercise followed all appropriate procedures and regulations.

"It also finds that the two American pilots contravened established procedures and were the direct cause of the incident," McCallum said.

The bombing caused anger and outrage in Canada.

The four soldiers killed in the accident were members of the 3rd Battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, which is based near Edmonton, Alberta.

The deaths were the Canadian military's first in a combat zone since the Korean War, when 516 soldiers were killed, though 78 Canadians serving with the U.S. military died during the Vietnam War. The United Nations says 106 Canadian troops have died during U.N. peacekeeping missions since 1948.

The two F-16s were returning from a mission over Afghanistan when they saw what at least one pilot believed to be enemy fire near the southern city of Kandahar.

DeLong said the investigators determined that the lead pilot reported seeing what looked like "fireworks" on the ground and believed it was hostilid.

The second F-16 pilot then requested permission to fire his 20 mm cannon at the target, but an airborne control plane in the vicinity instructed him to wait. That pilot then declared self-defense and released a 500-pound laser-guided bomb, which struck and killed four Canadian troops.

DeLong said this amounted to "inappropriate use of lethal force."

One of the F-16 pilots has been identified as Maj. Harry Schmidt of the Illinois Air National Guard's 170th Fighter Squadron. The other pilot's identity has not been revealed publicly. DeLong mentioned neither by name.

Schmidt's lawyer released a statement shortly after the incident saying the pilot did not know the ground troops were part of the U.S.-led coalition.

"The pilot believes that he

[shit4brains]

i thought i smelled canadian bacon

<IMG SRC="http://www.industrialdeathrock.com/gallery/pixzip/shit4brains/10416567540.jpg">
<b>shit4brains moi? Yit-Ding!</b>

[Abrasive Dean]

The second F-16 pilot then requested permission to fire his 20 mm cannon at the target, but an airborne control plane in the vicinity instructed him to wait. That pilot then declared self-defense and released a 500-pound laser-guided bomb, which struck and killed four Canadian troops.


If the quote above is true then the pilot will be punished by the military tribunal.

The "rules of engagement" are applied in such cases.

I would imagine the pilot would be dismissed from the service. It would be unlikely for criminal proceedings to be taken.

<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/deanmcg/sig/sig.jpg">

[Captain Rooster]

an airborne control plane in the vicinity instructed him to wait.


This is a MAJOR issue in this case. A direct order given by a "battle captain" or person tracking the status and disposition of ground forces in the area always needs to be considered.

I think they will lose their careers--hopefully not their lives and families.



<img src=http://www.ltrooster.homestead.com/files/roosterclawsanime.gif>