No court martial for US pilots who killed four Canadians

[KrazyHorse]

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

-Arrian

Not the one that decided not to proceed with charges.

That was an all USAF affair.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Willem


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.

There's enough blame to go around.

They should get their asses tossed in the brig for a couple of years.

Their actions, given the information at their disposal, are unjustifiable.

[Dis]

and some of you guys don't realize how difficult it is being a pilot. all that land looks the same.

He has to rely on people telling him where to bomb. If that information is wrong, or if he makes a mistake- innocent lives will be lost.

[Imran Siddiqui]

There was no proper trial. There simply a hearing with some of the evidence provided.

What do you think a court-martial is? It's a hearing with some of the evidence provided.

I'm not sure they actually apply civilian criminal law either.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Tingkai
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?

No, it's not a trial of innocence or guilt. Unlike civilian law, the military has the option of either going to a court-martial, which is a formal judicial proceeding with it's own set of legal procedures, or going to an informal administrative proceeding. Court-martial offenses are contained within the 125 articles of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), which was approved by Congress in 1952, and amended from time to time. The procedural rules are contained in the Manual for Courts-Martial (MCM).

Courts-martial have their own appelate courts systems, first one for each of the services, and then the civilian Court of Military Appeals, then the US Supreme Court, if a Federal constitutional issue can be raised on appeal. Unlike civilian courts, any serious sentence (dishonorable discharge from service, or imprisonment for more than one year) are automatically appealed to each service's Court of Military Review.

This proceeding that just concluded is like a grand jury or an arraignment, in that the purpose is to determine whether enough evidence exists to convene a General Court Martial (the highest of three levels of court martial).

Unlike civilian courts in the US, the military has administrative disciplinary proceedings which are less formal than court-martials. (called captain's mMast or admiral's mast in the Navy, and NJP or Article 15 in the Army. NJP = Non-judicial punishment, Article 15 is the section of the UCMJ that allows for NJP proceedings) Article 15's don't have defense counsel, they can't result in imprisonment or dishonorable discharge, but they can mete out fairly significant punishments - loss of rank, loss of pay, or administrative separation from service, which can be in a degree that allows termination of most military benefits.

What was decided here wasn't that these guys were innocent, it was decided that although there was enough evidence for the GCMCA (General Court Martial Convening Authority) to convene a court martial, the situation was better handled with the administrative proceeding.

The two pilots could insist on a court martial, but the downside is that if convicted, the penalties would be a lot more severe than in the Article 15 if convicted. Essentially, what you have here is a plea-bargain, for whatever reason, including possibly covering asses higher up. However, the net effect of the administrative proceeding is to destroy these guys careers - they're over and done as military pilots.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Tingkai
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.

This was a hearing to determine is ther would be a court martial trial for a felony, or an adminstrative tribunal for lessors charges, or no action. The recomendation by the hearing oficer is administrative tribunaal. He may be overruled by upon review.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Kontiki
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".

A couple of things - at the time, Taleban types still occasionally tried to play at the perimeter of Bagram air base - that's a lot closer in than this exercise area, so you couldn't make a blanket assumption that no infiltration took place at night in pretty much any given area.

Second point, the designation of the area as a training area was done poorly - this type of incident wasn't anticipated, because IR strobes and other sorts of safety precautions could have been taken otherwise - the thing was the pilots were in transit, returning from a patrol, so nobody expected that aircraft would engage ground targets.

The tasking orders that designated the training area, ROEs and flight restrictions got muddled - the two officers in question were responsible for handling that administrative work for their squadron, but those types of orders are updated daily, and come in a report format that covers just about the entire theater - the organization of the information, the clutter of excess detail, and lack of dedicated administrative personnel contributed to the pilots not being immediately aware that they were transiting a training area. The AWACS crewman heard in transcripts was also unclear this was a training area - that's apparent in the transcript, and the AWACS is in a totally distinct chain of command, so someone else was looking at that unit's reports.

Clearly, there were significant failures of communication above the level of these two pilots, so they would be taking the heat for failures of higher ups if prosecuted and imprisoned.

[Tingkai]

Thanks for the info MTG.

It still leaves me confused. How can they say there is enough evidence for a court martial, but we're not going to court martial them?

This is a travesty. What bugs me the most is that not only are four Canadians dead, but it seems like nothing is being done to prevent similar actions from occurring in the future.

A trial would have put the system under the spotlight. Remember that the drug issue only came to light because of the defence counsel. At first I thought the lawyer was grasping at straws, but the more I think about, the more I think that maybe he has a valid concern. Why did an experienced pilot disobey so many rules? Maybe it was the drugs.

Should the pilots be blamed for not knowing what was going on. Maybe. One was the Squadron Commander and the other was the Mission Commander. Then again, the tasking orders overwhelm pilots with more information then they can process.

A trial could have answered a lot of questions. It could have resulted in changes that prevented future accidents.

[Berzerker]

Dinodoc -

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

Are you admitting some truckers have fallen asleep at the wheel and killed people who would still be alive today if the truckers were wide awake on speed? Truckers can fall asleep before reaching that legal limit which is true for pilots as well, but making it illegal for truckers to use an effective stimulant to stay awake kills people. It's just another leftist solution that creates a problem in the name of solving a problem that doesn't get solved in the first place. It was the same mindset that led to alcohol prohibition, reduce alcohol consumption and we reduce violence and crime. The result was a doubling of the homicide rate...

[Joseph]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat

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.

What will happen in a few months or less, they will be quietly discharge from the service and if they don't have 20 years in, will not receive any benefits, nor will they receive an Honorable Discharge has I have. They will be given Administrated or General Discharge under Honorable condition. That means that they did not break any laws but made the Military look bad and are being told to leave and don't call us, we call you.
Their career in the Air Force is over. With this accident on their record they could never be promoted again and so if you cannot be promoted you are out.
Remember our Sub Capt. who hit the Japanese ship. He was discharge a few months after the incident.
To some of the other poster on this thread, yes sometime in the Government and or the Military the left and right hands to not communicate to well and thing happen.

[Uncle Sparky]

As, I said a few years ago, and repeat every now & then, no American soldier or leader will ever stand trail and receive any serious punishment for acts they carry out in times of war, no matter how heinous.

The Bush administration has declared an open ended war on terrorism & made it clear they have the right to decide who is a threat to American interests and deal with them by force.

I pity the British soldiers in the coalition - they have more to fear from their allies then from the Iraqis.

Besides - the people killed were only Canadians.

[Verto]

[Imran Siddiqui]

How can they say there is enough evidence for a court martial, but we're not going to court martial them?

Because they made a choice that an adminstrative proceeding would be better. It may be able to adequately find out who was responsible for the mess up in communication. They made a choice it would be better for this to end up in an administrative proceeding, which they can do.

You are acting like they won't be punished. Almost certainly they will never fly again in the military. Probably they will be booted out.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Dissident
and some of you guys don't realize how difficult it is being a pilot. all that land looks the same.

He has to rely on people telling him where to bomb. If that information is wrong, or if he makes a mistake- innocent lives will be lost.

Nobody told him to bomb. On the contrary, they told him to stand off.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Are you admitting some truckers have fallen asleep at the wheel and killed people who would still be alive today if the truckers were wide awake on speed?

No, I'm admiting that more people would be alive today if truckers would follow the law regarding the legally alotted number of hours they can drive.

It's just another leftist solution that creates a problem in the name of solving a problem that doesn't get solved in the first place.

How is it leftist to think that truckers shouldn't be on the road under the influence of drugs? I don't care what you take in the privacy of your own home but when you get out on the roads I use it becomes my problem.