Friendly fire death was Criminal by oldenglanddry

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Friendly fire death was Criminal

POSTED BY: OLDENGLANDDRY
UPDATED: Friday, March 16, 2007 10:16
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1102
PAGE 1 of 1

Friday, March 16, 2007 6:54 AM

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/16032007/344/friendly-fire-death-criminal.htm
l

Just one of many.
Dont suppose anyone will be charged though.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 7:33 AM

DAYVE

The loss of life in wartime is often taken for granted as necessary by the armies fighting that war - which is tragic. I believe the term ‘cannon fodder’ refers to the multitudes of soldiers who were the first in line in battle.

Death is a part of war. Most Americans who have never been in the military can’t relate to the horror of innocent men, women and children being killed in their homes by unseen bombs and bullets. Atrocities do occur, but death by friendly fire has to be one of the most egregious.

I thought this thread would be about Pat Tillman, the ex-football player turned Army Ranger. That he was killed by friendly fire was bad enough, but the cover-up of the details of that incident was even worse.

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

Quote:
A report described in The Washington Post on May 4, 2005 (prepared upon the request of Tillman's family) by Brig. Gen. Gary M. Jones revealed that in the days immediately following Tillman's death, U.S. Army investigators were aware that Tillman was killed by friendly fire, shot three times to the head. Jones reported that senior Army commanders, including Gen. John Abizaid, knew of this fact within days of the shooting but nevertheless approved the awarding of the Silver Star, Purple Heart, and a posthumous promotion. The citation report accompanying these awards said that Tillman was killed by enemy forces and contained a detailed account of the supposed battle--which Army leadership knew had never taken place.

Jones reported that members of Tillman's unit burned his body armor and uniform in an apparent attempt to hide the fact that he was killed by friendly fire. Several soldiers were subsequently punished for their actions by being removed from the United States Army Rangers. Jones believed that Tillman should retain his medals and promotion, since, according to Jones, he intended to engage the enemy and, in Jones's opinion, behaved heroically.

My apologies for taking this tread in a different direction than you had intended. The death of Matty Hull is another serious tragedy of this preposterous war. I’ll probably get flamed for this, but it is my opinion that the thousands of lives lost in this war have been wasted simply to further the political ambitions of the egomaniacal leaders who started this whole thing in the first place.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 7:57 AM

GEEZER

Keep the Shiny side up

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Dont suppose anyone will be charged though.

The Hull family is not asking for charges.

Quote:
Afterwards, lawyer Geraldine McCool said the verdict did not suggest there would be a prosecution of the US pilot and the Hull family would not be calling for one.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6449227.stm

But then, there's this.

Quote:
Although one of the pilots spotted what he thought were orange panels on the vehicles - signifying they were friendly forces - they were assured by forward air controllers attached to British units that there were "no friendlies" in the area.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6441955.stm

And the coroner's remarks seem to display a lack of understanding about the realities of combat.

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

Self-defense is hardly the only acceptable reason to fire on the battlefield.

The question I'd like to see answered is why didn't the forward air controllers know there were any British forces in the area? That seems to be the proximate cause of the tragedy.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 8:15 AM

CAUSAL

Geezer,

There was an extended discussion of this issue on a thread a while back. You should see if you can pull it up. I found the transcript of the radio traffic between the jets, the ground controller and forward air controllers. If you look through the transcript you'll see that the pilots took quite a bit of time working to ID the vehicles they saw (but the unfortunate fact is that they mis-ID'd them). They did see orange on top of the vehilces and mistook them for rocket launchers. Befored they rolled in for the strike, they radioed their ground controllers with their (erroneous) ID of the vehicles (which they took to be soviet-manufactured trucks). The GC confirmed that there were those trucks in the area. The pilots also asked for confirmation that there were no friendlies in the area and the GC assured them that there were not. It was only after the initial strike that they got word that there were friendlies in the area, and the transcript even reported that one of the pilots was weeping. So it's not as if these guys just rolled in without due diligence and felt no remorse after the mistake came to light. Just to echo what has already been said in this thread, friendly fire, while tragic, is an inescapable part of war. That doesn't mean that the death of Cpl Hull is any less a tragedy, to be sure, and it doesn't mean that the incident shouldn't have been investigated. But it does mean that you can't avoid it entirely. I believe that the US military conducted an investigation of the matter and concluded that the pilots were not criminally responsible. (Of course, I'm sure someone will yell, "Cover up!" anyway.) I admit to not doing all the research to be fully up to speed on it, but I do know that it was a British coroner who made that determination, and with all due respect to that individual's professionalism, I don't see that a coroner has the requisite training and experience (let alone access to all pertinent information)(to say nothing of his access to all parties involved in order to conduct a thorough investigation) to make the call on his own. For a coroner four years removed from the incident to decide that he knows better than the pilots and ground control personnel actually involved just strikes me as entirely beyond his area of expertise. The mere accusation that an act was criminal is not sufficient for it to actually be criminal.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 9:06 AM

FLETCH2

Don't know how it works in the US but in the UK the coroner's job is to legaly establish the cause of death, that means a little more than just saying how a person died. For example, if the coroner determines accidental death it actually makes it harder to open a criminal investigation into it, likewise if it's deemed unlawfull it is hard for the police to _not_ investigate it.

My understanding is that legally an accident is something that cannot be foreseen or prevented, since this could be foreseen and could be prevented it could not be termed an accident. Since murder, suicide and act of God are also inappropriate the rulling given is about the only one that fits. Nobody disputes that it was accidental, it just can't be legally defined as an accident.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 9:47 AM

JKIDDO

Causal- Do mean "criminal" or "intentional"? Death doesn't have to be intentional to be criminal. Ever hear of "criminal negligence?" And the criminality doesn't necessarily rest on the pilots. It might be with the air controllers, who may've been negligent.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Friday, March 16, 2007 10:16 AM

CAUSAL

Quote:
Originally posted by JKiddo:
Causal- Do mean "criminal" or "intentional"? Death doesn't have to be intentional to be criminal. Ever hear of "criminal negligence?" And the criminality doesn't necessarily rest on the pilots. It might be with the air controllers, who may've been negligent.

J-good question! Based on the investigations into the matter that I've undertaken, I suppose I mean both. The death of Cpl Hull wasn't intentional--I doubt very seriously that A-10 pilot intended to kill a British soldier. I don't think that there are many who would argue that. It is, in the minds of some (though not mine), an open question whether this case constitutes criminal negligence or not. As I say, I've read through the transcript of the radio traffic from the event, and though it's absolutely correct to say that the pilots misidentified the British armored vehicles, it also seems clear that the two took pains to confirm their initial ID; which, needless to say, makes the incident all the more tragic. I imagine that poor pilot will go to his grave with an extremely heavy burden of guilt over the thing, which is going to be a far heavier punishment than any the criminal justice system could mete out.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE