Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

US Pilots Escape Serious Penalties

Military Justice

  • Please log in to reply
44 replies to this topic

#1 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 07:00 AM

From the Globe And Mail:

Quote

By DANIEL LEBLANC
Ottawa — Although they once faced the possibility of a 64-year jail sentence, Major William Umbach will simply get a reprimand and his flying partner, Major Harry Schmidt, will face a light set of administrative penalties for the late-night bombing last year that left four Canadian soldiers dead.

The U.S. military announced yesterday that it would not have recourse to a courts-martial against the F-16 pilots, saying that any punishment will be meted out through non- judicial means.

Major Schmidt, who released the fatal bomb in April, 2002, will face a final set of proceedings that can lead to one or more of the following penalties: a reprimand, 30 days' confinement to quarters, forfeiting one month's pay or losing his pilot's licence.

Major Umbach, who has been criticized for his lack of control over his subordinate, will receive a reprimand for "his leadership failures as the lead pilot." He will be allowed to leave the U.S. Air Force....(article continues)

From BBC News:

Quote

...Both pilots have maintained their innocence throughout, blaming the "fog of war" for the deaths.

But a joint US-Canadian investigation said the men were at fault for the deaths - the worst case of so-called friendly fire during the war in Afghanistan.

The F-16 pilots bombed what they thought were hostile troops. The pilots were found to have shown a reckless disregard for flight rules and it was found they had taken military issue amphetamines - known as "go pills" - to allow them to fly a 10-hour sortie to Afghanistan...

Is this an appropriate punishment for four cases of manslaughter? I suspect civilians would be judged much more harshly.
Per aspera ad astra

#2 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 07:03 AM

Bad things happen in war, good people die. Were the Air Force pilots deliberately strafing our allies, yelling "Yeah, we'll get them Canadians!"? No, then they're not guilty of murder.

It could just as easily have been American soldiers they bombed, and the verdict would have been the same. Mistakes happen.

-Ogami

#3 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 07:08 AM

It's been a while since I reviewed the facts of the case. But IIRC...

The pilots weren't told Canadians would be in the area. I think that reduces their culpability.

It's a tough decision, however.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#4 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 07:08 AM

Ogami, on Jun 20 2003, 08:04 PM, said:

Bad things happen in war, good people die. Were the Air Force pilots deliberately strafing our allies, yelling "Yeah, we'll get them Canadians!"? No, then they're not guilty of murder.

It could just as easily have been American soldiers they bombed, and the verdict would have been the same. Mistakes happen.

-Ogami
You're misrepresenting the issue.  No one was accusing them of murder.  The issue was whether or not the pilots disregarded the rules of engagment and acted recklessly when attacking the Canadian peacekeepers.  

Zack
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#5 G1223

G1223

    The Blunt Object.

  • Dead account
  • 16,164 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 08:22 AM

Seems that the court case was heard by the responsible parties and a resonable action was taken by those parties or were you wanting the a sacrifice  with say death being given for a accident. I mean that way our people will be punished?

Basically as Ogami say in war bad sh*t happens to nice folks as well as bad we try to limit it as much as possible but till things happen. A lot folks join the military out of a sense of duty to their country  getting a reprimand might keep a young officer from getting a promostion or assignment to a unit he would like to have been part of.

I know they took those guys lives Kevin do you think they did  this with deliberatly?
If you encounter any Trolls. You really must not forget them.
And if you want to save these shores. For Pity sake Don't Trust them.
paraphrased from H. "Breaker" Morant

TANSTAAFL
If you voted for Obama then all the mistakes he makes are your fault and I will point this out to you every time he does mess up.

When the fall is all that remains. It matters a great deal.

All hail the clich's all emcompassing shadow.

My playing well with other's skill has been vastly overrated

Member of the Order of the Knigths of the Woeful Countance.

#6 Kevin Street

Kevin Street
  • Islander
  • 6,256 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 10:46 AM

I never said anything about this being murder. Isn't "manslaughter" the legal term for accidentally killing someone?

Quote

Rov:
The pilots weren't told Canadians would be in the area. I think that reduces their culpability.

I agree with Zack about the real issue being the reckless behavior of the pilots.

But Rov, if what you say is true, it suggests that the problem goes even further than the pilots, maybe even into the officer ranks. These guys are the thin edge of the sword here, the airmen who enforce American military power, dropping death onto evildoers from above, and they're doing ten hour shifts strung out on amphetamines. The system needs to be changed, to minimize the chance of more "friendly fire accidents."

But if the buck stops here and everyone justs shrugs and says "oh well," nothing will change.

#7 jon3831

jon3831

    Iolanthe's evil conservative twin

  • Islander
  • 2,601 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 01:17 PM

The pilots did violate the ROE. I don't think anyone is denying that. When they were "fired" on, they descended to investigate, which was a clear violation. They're likely going to lose their wings, and likely be "seperated" from the service. Personally, I don't find that to be "escaping serious penalties".

There's another problem with court-martialing them. Specifically, military law isn't about justice. It never was. It's about insuring "good order and discipline", which is why they have Article 194, which is a catch-all:

Quote

Though not specifically mentioned in this chapter, all disorders and neglects to the prejudice of good order and discipline in the armed forces, ll conduct of a nature to bring discredit upon the armed forces, and crimes and offenses not capital, of which persons subject to this chapter may be guilty, shall be taken cognizance of by a general, special or summary court-martial, according to the nature and degree of the offense, and shall be punished at the discretion of that court.

If we're to start court-martialing pilots for being too aggressive in a war zone, it sets a very bad precedent. Pretty soon, they won’t want to take chances, and then nothing will get done for fear of making a mistake.

As a point of record, the main purpose of the military is to kill people and break things. And as such, combat zones are dangerous places. Steps are taken to make sure that accidents don't happen, but there are still going to be accidents.

Now then, while I think that these two pilots *did* violate orders, something needs to be said about the command and control in the region. There's an institutional problem, here too. We need to stop issuing medals for pounds of ordinance dropped and start awarding for completed missions. We need to consolidate the chain of command. When these pilots asked for information on those tanks, it took 97 seconds to get a response.(1) When you're flying low, it's dark, and you're under fire, 97 seconds is an eternity. That, and the fact that F-16s were doing close air support (a job for which they're not trained to do), the Air Force itself needs to take it's share of the lumps. Crucifying these two guys for what is partially a problem with the system isn't going to bring anyone back, and it will ultimately do more harm than good.

1)97 seconds between Major Schmidt called the AWACS requesting permission to lay down 20mm fire to the AWACS response of “Hold fire, I need details on surface to air fire.”  Annex B - Visual Timeline Chart (21:16Z to 21:36Z), Canadian Forces Board of Inquiry Report
"The issue is not war and peace, rather, how best to   preserve our freedom."
                    --General Russell E. Dougherty, USAF

WWCELeMD?

#8 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 02:07 PM

I’m agreed with Jon on this one.  This accident is a case of both the fog of war and trying to do too much with too little in the way of resources catching up with us tragically.  

Quote

Kevin Street: The system needs to be changed, to minimize the chance of more "friendly fire accidents."

This is actually the point of Blue Force Tracker and other IFF systems that the US military happens to be developing/fielding.  The reviews on Blue Force Tracker so far have all seemed to be positive to praising.    
I have yet to see many Canadians pushing for radical steps for Canada to stick with NATO’s plan for a new IFF system.  So I’d suggest that Canadians should ride Ottawa a little for IFF systems and not just pass the buck down dumping it all on the US military.  If they won’t support the development of such a system then vote them out of office.  

A good solid IFF system available for quick checking can easily prevent a repeat of this from occurring in the future.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#9 Ogami

Ogami
  • Islander
  • 2,976 posts

Posted 21 June 2003 - 08:47 PM

MuseZack wrote:

You're misrepresenting the issue. No one was accusing them of murder. The issue was whether or not the pilots disregarded the rules of engagment and acted recklessly when attacking the Canadian peacekeepers.


What G1223 said.

-Ogami

#10 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 04:07 AM

Okay, I'm going to push the argument to why the pilots need punishment.I'm going mostly from my memory here, so I may be mistaken in some facts.

-3rd Battalion, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry was holding a section live fire exercise on Tarnak Farm the night when the friendly fire incident occured.

-Tarnak Farm was being used as coalition force training area.

-Canadians did notify the US of intent to use Tarnak Farm.

-In section live fire exercise, nothing higher calibre than 5.56 NATO rounds be used. (C6 aka M240 may have been fired, but C6 is a platoon support weapon. In any case, it fires only 7.62mm NATO)

-The American fighters were flying above 5km the ground. (something like that)

http://www.thestar.c...ol=968793972154

Quote

Schmidt's squadron leader, 44-year-old Maj. William Umbach, flying alongside him, had been told by an air controller to "hold fire." But 39 seconds later, thinking he was being fired at, Schmidt unleashed his payload.

-5.56mm NATO tracer rounds have tracers burn out by 800m range (something close to that)

Quote

He will face allegations that he failed to ensure his target was the enemy, not allies, failed to acknowledge and follow the direction of his flight leader to make sure his target was not a friendly before dropping the fatal bomb and failed to heed a "stand by" order by an Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft.

Conclusion: The American fighters were above effective range of small arms fire. (You can't hit fighters for sh*t with LMGs anyways)
The American pilots were told NOT to fire, but Schmidt did so anyways, killing 4 Canadians wounding 8.

Now, there's also an issue of how much of the drugs AF gave to the pilots had an effect on their judgement, however, weighing that factor with the rest of the facts of the incident, (if AF uses it, would it have such critical impairment of judgement? If yes, why was it being used?) I think there is strong case for negligence and court martial.

This is not being too aggressive. This is being just stupid.

This is one of the reasons why Americans are thought of as cowboys. Trigger happy does not make good soldiers.
Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#11 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 10:31 AM

Let’s get into the negilgience on the part of the Canadians.  
Fact: Canadian Soldiers had covered up their IFF glow patches because it interfered with their night vision goggles.  
Fact: The Canadians were unaware of US regulations that state the glow sticks must be visible at all times.

The very actions of the Canadian soldiers might have taken away the ability of the pilots to identify them as friendly troops.  So I’d suggest there is culpability on the part of the Canadian soldiers for not knowing proper IFF procedure and following it.  If those were US troops on the ground they would have very likely had the proper IFF procedures ready for the fighters to spot.  

Quote

Eviltree: Canadians did notify the US of intent to use Tarnak Farm.

IIRC They alerted the US but not through the proper channels that would have resulted in that information being immediately available to the AWACS and the fighters.

Quote

Eviltree: -5.56mm NATO tracer rounds have tracers burn out by 800m range (something close to that)

The rounds might be burned out but the flashes until they reach that 800m range could still potentially be seen from the air even if they weren’t in  proximity to them.  


Quote

Eviltree: This is one of the reasons why Americans are thought of as cowboys. Trigger happy does not make good soldiers.

So Canadians never commit friendly fire incidents Eviltree?  Every military in the world has committed them, commits them, and will continue to commit them.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#12 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 12:23 PM

Quote

Fact: Canadian Soldiers had covered up their IFF glow patches because it interfered with their night vision goggles.
Fact: Canadians were in what is considered secure training area therefore had no reason to take proper IFF preparations.

Quote

Fact: The Canadians were unaware of US regulations that state the glow sticks must be visible at all times.
Since when did Canadians must conform to US regulations? If this is the case, why did the Americans failed to inform the Canadians of the regulations?

Quote

IIRC They alerted the US but not through the proper channels that would have resulted in that information being immediately available to the AWACS and the fighters.
Who's responsible for passing information to the air force? Canadians or the Americans?
Since US Air Force assets are under control of Americans, logic assumes that it is up to the Americans to pass information.

Quote

The rounds might be burned out but the flashes until they reach that 800m range could still potentially be seen from the air even if they weren’t in proximity to them.
The Canadians were engaging ground targets, not air. I sincerely hope that the pilots can tell the difference between the tracers engaging ground targets and tracers being shot in the air.

Quote

So Canadians never commit friendly fire incidents Eviltree? Every military in the world has committed them, commits them, and will continue to commit them.
What's your point?
I'm pressing the case that this friendly fire incident had sufficient evidence of negligence on the pilots part to press for court martial.
Yes, I realize that American military is bigger, therefore more FF incidents occur, however, US military, esp. the air force is getting a rather nasty reputation.
I am reminded of another incident in recent Iraq war when an American AA crew engaged a British chopper and the Brit chopper pilot had words with the AA crew asking them when did they last see Iraqis fly a helicopter.
Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#13 Uncle Sid

Uncle Sid

    Highly impressionable

  • Islander
  • 1,414 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 12:48 PM

Quote

Fact: Canadians were in what is considered secure training area therefore had no reason to take proper IFF preparations.

I couldn't possibly disagree with this statement more.  There is never any excuse to not take proper IFF precautions unless that is part of the exercise.  Especially in an area that is hostile enough that it requires armed strike aircraft to patrol the vicinity regularly.  A commander who is sloppy enough to think that way needs to be immediately relieved of his command followed quickly by the strong suggestion that the resignation of his commission would be a good idea.  


Quote

Who's responsible for passing information to the air force? Canadians or the Americans?
Since US Air Force assets are under control of Americans, logic assumes that it is up to the Americans to pass information.

Both, equally.  The Americans and Canadians are an allied force and it is incumbent upon them to therefore be able to communicate.  Communication is a two way street, especially here.  While it certainly may have been more difficult to navigate the American chain of command for a Canadian soldier, it is still possible to do so.  It's not like there are no long standing joint protocols between the two militaries.  If that was not attempted, then the Canadian military would have a big share of the responsibility for the failure.  I'm not saying that they didn't here, but it's not proper to absolve an ally in general from responsibility for coordination.
I can picture in my mind a world without war, a world without hate. And I can picture us attacking that world, because they'd never expect it. - Jack Handey

#14 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 12:53 PM

Quote

Eviltree: Fact: Canadians were in what is considered secure training area therefore had no reason to take proper IFF preparations.

Then I’d suggest this mentality is grossly negligent and someone in the Canadian military needs a wakeup call on this one.  They were operating in a war zone and not a training exercise in the middle of Canada.    In case you hadn’t checked Afghanistan was still a war zone at the time with combat underway in many areas between the Coalition troops and rebel fighters. At several times allied compounds since and before then attacks had occurred with both mortars and RPGs on areas that were supposedly secure.  The first rule of a secure area is everyone knows it is secure but the enemy.  I’m sure the enemies just stop when they see the “this area secure” sign.  Or am I to assume things have grown so lax in the Canadian military that they ignore the danger of operating in a secure area without proper IFF when the enemy has infiltrated other supposedly secure areas?    

Either way you look at it the covering of the IFF beacons by the Canadian troops was a sloppy mistake that most likely contributed to the accident by denying the pilots their ability to identify them as friendly troops.


Quote

Eviltree: Since when did Canadians must conform to US regulations? If this is the
case, why did the Americans failed to inform the Canadians of the regulations?

1) When they are operating in a war zone with US aircraft overhead and had an agreed upon IFF technique with the USAF.  In this case it was infrared markers that the Canadians failed to display properly.  

2) In case you didn’t know the Americans did inform the Canadian troops of the IFF regulations.  Hence the whole reasons they had an “agreed” upon method for IFF of ground troops.  Someone in the Canadian chain of command failed to pass it down to the officer in charge of the unit that they were to be displayed at all times.  That or the officer was negligent in not knowing the IFF procedure.  It is expressly against regulation to cover them like the Canadian unit had done at the time.  


Quote

Eviltree: Who's responsible for passing information to the air force? Canadians or the Americans?  Since US Air Force assets are under control of Americans, logic assumes that it is up to the Americans to pass information.

In this case it was up to the Canadians organizing the exercise to contact the proper unit that would have seen to that information reaching the AWACS and fighters.  They failed to do so and instead alerted the Americans of the planned exercise in a manner that led to the delay in having the information.  

In addition the Canadian Forces failed to stick to their training schedule further causing confusion.

Quote

Eviltree:The Canadians were engaging ground targets, not air. I sincerely hope that the pilots can tell the difference between the tracers engaging ground targets and tracers being shot in the air.

Ricochets anyone?

Quote

Eviltree: What's your point?  I'm pressing the case that this friendly fire incident had sufficient evidence of negligence on the pilots part to press for court martial.

My point is that before Canadians go off looking to hang these two pilots they better consider they made their own screw ups.  Screw-ups that if they hadn’t occurred could have easily led to the attack never occurring.  Having the IFF glow sticks properly displayed could have alerted the pilots that the tracer fire was coming from friendly forces.

Edited by CJ AEGIS, 22 June 2003 - 12:59 PM.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#15 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 02:17 PM

I can't answer few of the points brought up b/c it is outside of my technical/procedural knowledge. I will answer them in few days when I get my info.

Let's assume that the Canadians screwed up big time and they were grossly at fault failing to take proper IFF precautions and failed to pass word to American chain of command properly. But let's consider a few things.

-Tarnak Farm was a well known and marked Coalition training area and was probably on maps as friendly area, with surrounding areas patrolled and secured. Bombing Tarnak Farm would have been doing similar thing to Kandahar base.

-Schmidt disregarded an explicit order to not to engage, but he did so anyways, without properly identifying his target.
Even taking fog of war into effect, you never, ever engage an unidentified target.

-The fighters are out of effective range of most AA guns.  (Unless I'm very mistaken)

-CJ, your riccochets would have a funny trajectory as it would go straight, and then go up. Funny trajectory for anti air guns, no?
Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#16 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 02:36 PM

Okay, I was able to get some answers.

The person I'm quoting is a company commander of 3 PPCLI who was there.

Quote

Regarding your #2, the answer is a resounding "No". We all had glo-tape IFF patches on the tops of our helmets (specifically for air/aviation IFF) as well as our left shoulders. We did not cover those up, as doing so would defeat the purpose of having them in the first place. More pertinent, is the fact that everyone had an issued IR strobe mounted on their helmet or web-gear yoke. Those were active, and should have given the pilots a sea of blinking lights on the ground to consider. Of course, at 20,000'altitude it is hard to see any ground-based IFF, let alone what you are shooting at....

With reference to your #3, the range practice in question was fully staffed and approved through our parent brigade HQ (187 BCT "Rakkasans" of the 101st Airborne Div) in full accordance with extant standing orders and requirements. It was an approved practice, on an established range that saw live-fire practices every single night for at least the 2 months leading up to the incident in question.

Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#17 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 02:56 PM

I made a mistake.

The portion of the range that the incident occured was a tank stalking range and anti tank weapons were used. (M72s or Carl Gustavs most likely)

http://www.vcds.forc...boi/intro_e.asp

Canadian board of inquiry report can be found on above link.

Edited by EvilTree, 22 June 2003 - 03:21 PM.

Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#18 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 04:06 PM

Quote

Eviltree: -Tarnak Farm was a well known and marked Coalition training area and was probably on maps as friendly area, with surrounding areas patrolled and secured. Bombing Tarnak Farm would have been doing similar thing to Kandahar base.

With the type of fighting going on in Afghanistan that means very little considering as I stated above enemy forces had before and after the incident infiltrated such areas and carried out successful operations within them.  To just assume that the area is totally secure and abandon proper regulations is stupid and downright negligent.  

Quote

Eviltree: -CJ, your riccochets would have a funny trajectory as it would go straight, and then go up. Funny trajectory for anti air guns, no?

And you’re going to tell the exact trajectory from that attitude?  The more likely scenario is you’d see a lot of flashes coming from the ground indicating fire but nothing more discerning than that.

Quote

Regarding your #2, the answer is a resounding "No". We all had glo-tape IFF patches on the tops of our helmets (specifically for air/aviation IFF) as well as our left shoulders. We did not cover those up, as doing so would defeat the purpose of having them in the first place.

At the speed and altitude the fighters were operating I highly doubt the patches would be much help in IFF.  The IR strobes would be the important piece of equipment.  I’ll be getting to this one in a second.  

Quote

More pertinent, is the fact that everyone had an issued IR strobe mounted on their helmet or web-gear yoke. Those were active, and should have given the pilots a sea of blinking lights on the ground to consider.

This doesn’t jibe at all with the official testimony from the hearing so I suggest you check your sources ET.  I may have many gripes about Canadian soldiers but I see no reason one of them would give false testimony under oath in favor of the guy who accidentally bombed them. The testimony of Captain Joseph Jasper, the member of the unit who was leading the exercise, directly refutes this statement you posted.  Under oath he stated that infrared strobes had been covered because they were interfering with the night vision equipment that they had been using.  It was an action that would be against US regulations and limit the ability of the fighters to ID them as friendly forces.    

So ET I would suggest that the guy who was under oath and leading the exercise is probably the one who knows what he is talking about.  I’m willing to be in other corners there is some serious hind end covering going on.          

Quote

It was an approved practice, on an established range that saw live-fire practices every single night for at least the 2 months leading up to the incident in question.

And this exercise was going on outside of the scheduled time for that particular exercise.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#19 EvilTree

EvilTree

    my silence is my pervading call

  • Islander
  • 623 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 04:12 PM

You don't mind if I ask for the source of your quotation of Capt. Jasper's remarks?

Also, I suggest that we take a bit of recess so that we can check our sources and fully digest our information. (I suggest that you read the board of inquiry report)
Loyalty, Vigilance, Excellence
-Motto of Imperial Space Marines


"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms."
-Robert A. Heinlein

"Self control is chef element in self respect. Self respect is chief element in courage."
-Thucydides

#20 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 22 June 2003 - 04:32 PM

EvilTree, on Jun 22 2003, 05:13 AM, said:

You don't mind if I ask for the source of your quotation of Capt. Jasper's remarks?

Also, I suggest that we take a bit of recess so that we can check our sources and fully digest our information. (I suggest that you read the board of inquiry report)
Well here comes the good stuff.  

Article 32 Testimony

Quote

Q. How many of the men were wearing the IRR strobes on their helmets?
A. Just about everyone was wearing them, but we didn’t always turn all of them on because they tended to overwhelm helicopter pilots as they came in -- so many flashings.  Typically, you would always have at least a couple per element, that element was a section of eight men, and typically you would have three or four on maybe -- every second or third man would have it on.


Friendly-fire hearing told of earlier incident

Quote

The Canadian troops, members of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, had been using machine guns and other small arms on plywood targets. Jasper said the fire was "rapid and heavy" and that tracers from the gunfire were soaring up to 200 metres into the sky. He also admitted that the soldiers didn't flash a red light, the signal to warn U.S. pilots of live fire exercises.

Canadian recalls bombing mayhem

Quote

Under cross-examination by the pilots' defence lawyers, Jasper admitted some of the red glow sticks were covered up. He also admitted he wasn't aware of U.S. regulations requiring glow lights to be always visible, and that those regulations weren't followed. He said the glow sticks were interfering with their use of night vision goggles.

"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: Military, Justice

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users