No court martial for US pilots who killed four Canadians

Tingkai · March 21, 2003, 01:09

Okay Ming, you closed my other thread on the subject so here it is without comment. Or are you banning all discussions about this tragedy???

From The Toronto Star
Anger greets decision of 'friendly fire' inquiry

Two U.S. pilots who dropped a bomb on Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan "will get away with murder" if they're not court-martialled for the deadly mistake, says the mother of one of the victims.
Agatha Dyer reacted with bitter disappointment after an American officer recommended today that Maj. Harry Schmidt and Maj. William Umbach shouldn't go before a military tribunal for the accident, which killed four Canadians in the Afghan desert last April. Eight other soldiers were injured.

"I want to see some punishment," she said from her home in Montreal. "This is just a charade. They just get away with murder."

Dyer took no comfort in the finding by Col. Patrick Rosenow who said there was sufficient evidence to send the pilots to a court martial, but that the charges should be dismissed and their case should be handled outside a military court.

Rosenow, who presided over a special military hearing in January that looked into the case, said the matter should be heard in a non-judicial or administrative forum, which could result in a penalty as mild as a letter of reprimand.

"The interests of good order and discipline could adequately be addressed by sanctions other than trial by court martial," said a U.S. Air Force release.

The final decision in the case now rests with Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson of the 8th Air Force, but it was not clear when he would rule.

Dyer, whose son Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer died along with three other soldiers from the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry, urged Carlson to dismiss the recommendation and order a court martial.

"They have to pay for what they did," she said through tears and a thick Caribbean accent. "It was senseless - my son was young, he had a life, was going to get married, have children and have dreams and that will never come true. We're so upset."

Imran Siddiqui · March 21, 2003, 01:15

I don't understand this 'getting away with murder'. At most this would be involuntary manslaughter.

Zkribbler · March 21, 2003, 01:19

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.

Drake Tungsten · March 21, 2003, 01:21

Quote:

It was a tragic accident, to be sure. But it was just that--an accident. It's wasn't murder.

notyoueither · March 21, 2003, 01:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I don't understand this 'getting away with murder'. At most this would be involuntary manslaughter.

That's a semantic hair, isn't it?

Lots of things are murder that aren't premeditated and done with malice, right?

RedFred · March 21, 2003, 01:24

Imran, no doubt. But an immediate family member could be expected to react emotionally. Zkribbler, I disagree. There are rules of engagement that were ignored in this case.

The timing of this announcement is interesting. Were they hoping it would get less scrutiny and notice on the first day of the US Iraq war, or am I being too cynical?

Willem · March 21, 2003, 01:27

I'm glad to hear that! I think it was silly for them to make such a fuss. It occured in a combat zone, accidents happen. It's tragic, but that's part of the job. She should just accept the fact that her son was in a dangerous profession, instead of trying to ruin more lives. I feel sorry for the guys that have been dragged through this, I imagine they already feel bad enough as it is.

DinoDoc · March 21, 2003, 01:27

Probably had something to do with them being doped up under orders of the Air Force.

notyoueither · March 21, 2003, 01:28

And ignoring orders. Don't forget ignoring orders.

MichaeltheGreat · March 21, 2003, 01:32

This case was a little excessive compared to normal fratricidal attacks.

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.

There are bigger fish here - the doping issue is one, the use of reservist pilots possibly without adequate preparation, administrative task saturation and poor communication that caused them not to be aware that they were over a designated training area, so a good defense lawyer could muddy the waters in a trial proceeding.

DinoDoc · March 21, 2003, 01:34

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
And ignoring orders. Don't forget ignoring orders.

Might have had something to do with them being high as a kite.

Willem · March 21, 2003, 01:37

Sure mistakes were made, but it was a stressful situation and potentially dangerous. Sometimes people react without thinking under those conditions; that's just being human. I'm sure they've been disciplined for their mistakes, not to mention the guilt they already have to live with. They don't need to be courtmartialed as well. That would be cruel and unusual punishment IMO.

Imran Siddiqui · March 21, 2003, 01:38

Quote:

Lots of things are murder that aren't premeditated and done with malice, right?

Define lots

. Outside of premed murder (or purposely) there is knowingly and recklessly (though that wouldn't fly, because Canadian and America troops were engaged in a military setting). Negligent homicide is very rare and wouldn't apply based on the setting Then there is felony murder (but there was no felony here).

What's left is manslaughter... and this wasn't voluntary.

Willem · March 21, 2003, 01:41

Quote:

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

There are bigger fish here - the doping issue is one, the use of reservist pilots possibly without adequate preparation, administrative task saturation and poor communication that caused them not to be aware that they were over a designated training area, so a good defense lawyer could muddy the waters in a trial proceeding.

The more I hear of the case, the more I can't help but feel that they're just taking the fall for screw-ups higher up.

Berzerker · March 21, 2003, 01:43

They weren't high as a kite, people in the military who have used the stuff said it's like a few cups of strong coffee. Since that's generally what people give to drunks to sober them up, I'd say being "high" was not their problem. I understand the guys were told there should have been no friendlies in that area when they requested instructions. Does anyone have an actual transcript of testimony given by the people involved? People throw the word "high" around and don't know the first thing about what they're talking about.

Imran Siddiqui · March 21, 2003, 01:45

Quote:

The more I hear of the case, the more I can't help but feel that they're just taking the fall for screw-ups higher up.

Same. I don't think they did anything really wrong, but I think the higher ups should be held to answer for this.

notyoueither · March 21, 2003, 01:46

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc

Might have had something to do with them being high as a kite.

Will that work for a drunk driver?

Berzerker · March 21, 2003, 01:46

Quote:

The more I hear of the case, the more I can't help but feel that they're just taking the fall for screw-ups higher up.

Wouldn't be the first time, I trust the Pentagon as much as Congress. I remember what they did to Clayton Hartwig after the #2 turret on the Iowa blew up...

DinoDoc · March 21, 2003, 01:48

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Will that work for a drunk driver?

It might if the cops tell the guy to drink up before getting on the road or he'll get in trouble.

notyoueither · March 21, 2003, 01:49

So, Tingkai was right a long time ago when he said the fault was with the establishment of the United States military.

Asher · March 21, 2003, 02:05

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.

cinch · March 21, 2003, 02:18

Quote:

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

While I don't think there's a point in faulting the pilots themselves, I certainly do think there's a problem with the USAF pumping their pilots full of speed. When people die unnecessarily because of that, there's a bit of a problem.

Asher · March 21, 2003, 02:20

Quote:

Originally posted by cinch
While I don't think there's a point in faulting the pilots themselves, I certainly do think there's a problem with the USAF pumping their pilots full of speed. When people die unnecessarily because of that, there's a bit of a problem.

Okay, but I don't see what the hell that has to do with charging the pilots with murder.

Tingkai · March 21, 2003, 02:25

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.

Can anyone explain the process?

cinch · March 21, 2003, 02:26

Quote:

Okay, but I don't see what the hell that has to do with charging the pilots with murder.

Yeah, that's true. I didn't mean to imply otherwise in my post... Didn't think I did.

I wasn't trying to contradict your post... Just using it as a building block type of thing to say that, even though it was war and "**** happens", the USAF could possibly be held responsible.

Berzerker · March 21, 2003, 02:27

Quote:

While I don't think there's a point in faulting the pilots themselves, I certainly do think there's a problem with the USAF pumping their pilots full of speed. When people die unnecessarily because of that, there's a bit of a problem.

My God, did you know the Germans were giving their soldiers speed during the blitzkrieg and we were giving our pilots the same stuff? Speed didn't cause the tragedy, mis-communication about who or what was supposed to be on the ground in that area was the cause from what I know. The only problem with speed is staying awake for hours on end, that's when the lack of sleep can cause slight hallucinations. It is ironic that the Pentagon gives pilots that drug but puts truckers in jail for using it to prevent falling asleep at the wheel.

notyoueither · March 21, 2003, 02:34

Truckers kill voters. Pilots kill allies.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Imran Siddiqui · March 21, 2003, 02:35

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.

Berzerker · March 21, 2003, 02:44

Quote:

Truckers kill voters. Pilots kill allies.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

That happens whether the trucker or pilot is "sober" or not, maybe sobriety should be illegal.

But in the first case, voters kill truckers and voters by outlawing a drug that keeps truckers wide awake on the road. I know, I used to drive for a living...

DinoDoc · March 21, 2003, 02:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker
But in the first case, voters kill truckers and voters by outlawing a drug that keeps truckers wide awake on the road.

Truckers kill themselves and voters by driving longer than the law allows and falsifing records to cover it up as well.