Friendly fire pilots escape court martial

DinoDoc · June 19, 2003, 10:58

Quote:

Two U.S. F16 pilots will avoid criminal charges in the friendly fire bombing deaths of Canadian troops in Afghanistan, an air force general will announce today.

Maj. Harry Schmidt and Maj. William Umbach will not face courts martial over the April 2002 accident that left four Canadians dead and eight others injured. Lt.-Gen. Bruce Carlson of the USAF will make the announcement this afternoon.

His decision will be in line with recommendations handed down by an air force judge who presided over hearings into the accident in January.

Col. Patrick Rosenow reported that the U.S. government would not have a strong enough case to secure criminal convictions at court martial and instead recommended a lesser form of administrative punishment, which could take the form of loss of pay.

The U.S. air force gave advance notice of the decision to the Department of Defence yesterday, according to spokesperson Shane Diaczk.

The decision is sure to disappoint family members of the dead and injured Canadians.

Although none wanted to see either pilot receive the maximum sentence of 64 years in a military prison, most wanted some form of punishment, said Richard Léger, father of Sgt. Marc Léger, who was killed in the accident.

"I think there should be some kind of punitive action taken against," Mr. Léger said last night from his home in Stittsville when told of the decision. "It says something about the justice system."

He pointed to two boards of inquiry -- one Canadian, another American -- that found last June that pilot error was the main cause of the accident.

"Here's two panels of experts saying one thing, how can the justice system say they're not guilty?"

The pilots were flying near Kandahar on the night of April 17 when they mistook the Canadians nighttime exercise on the Tarnak Farms firing range for anti-aircraft fire.

Only moments after Maj. Schmidt's laser guided bomb hit the ground were they told by an air controller to "Disengage, friendlies, Kandahar."

The four members of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry who died in the blast were the first Canadian combat fatalities since the Korean War.

During hearings at the Barksdale Air Force Base in Bossier City, Louisiana, in January, the pilots' lawyers argued that poor co-ordination of the air-ground forces during Operation Enduring Freedom left aircrews in the dark about the movement of friendly forces.

They also suggested the pilots' judgment could have been skewed by amphetamines they were forced to take to stay awake on long missions.

Mr. Léger, who attended the hearings, said his son would have been more interested in seeing the problems that led to the accident fixed than the pilots imprisoned.

But he doesn't believe the problems have been resolved, as evidenced by the numerous friendly fire incidents in the war in Iraq.

"That's what's disheartening to me. That's what hard to accept. There's no reason."

Marc Léger's mother said she also was disappointed with the decision, and expressed regret that Maj. Schmidt would not be court-martialed. "He went to Afghanistan to win a medal. That's why my son is dead," said Mrs. Léger. "He blamed everyone but himself, and it seems to have worked."

Advocates from the U.S. air force are travelling to visit Mr. Léger, and his wife, Claire, and the families of the Canadians who were killed.

They will provide counselling and explain the decision in greater detail tomorrow morning. The U.S. government has made no offer of compensation to the Canadian families.

http://canada.com/national/story.asp?id=0E72B840-DBC3-4A6A-992D-E1F03CF14F10

Demerzel · June 19, 2003, 11:18

typical

Seeker · June 19, 2003, 11:29

"Advocates from the U.S. air force are travelling to visit Mr. L?er, and his wife, Claire, and the families of the Canadians who were killed."

(gag)

...in lieu of justice, please accept this shiny new half-hearted gesture!

DaShi · June 19, 2003, 11:33

I hear that they're giving them honorary American citizenship.

CerberusIV · June 19, 2003, 11:34

Somebody screwed up and people died as a consequence.

If the UK courts can put a man behind bars for falling asleep at the wheel of his car, running off the road and causing a train crash in which people died, why can't the US military manage to admit someone got it wrong in this case (and others have since) and do something about it.

Spiffor · June 19, 2003, 11:35

This is so ordinary.
And what's even better, there seems to have been no significant steps taken by the US army to reduce friendly fire. Where does such an extent of FF come from ?

MichaeltheGreat · June 19, 2003, 11:40

Because the UK man chooses the under which circumstances and at what fatigue levels, etc., he drives.

US military personnel in combat zones don't get to say "I need another few hours of beauty sleep, then I'll fly later"

Actually, Spiffor, there are a lot of steps taken to reduce fratricidal casualties. The reason the number sticks out so much is that we're so successful at ass-whomping our enemies so they don't get to fight long enough to inflict casualties on us.

Fratricidal casualties in WW II were in the tens of thousands, but that got lost in the background of all the other casualties.

Cruddy · June 19, 2003, 11:49

From what little I know of this case, the pilot was following SOP and disengaged when told to.

The SOP sucks. Why isn't that changed so it doesn't happen again?

Afghanistan is not exactly an uncommon place to view night time firing - this "bomb as you will" policy is just going to breed more resentment.

CerberusIV · June 19, 2003, 11:50

In other words the military are desperate to avoid any scrutiny of how they do things by outsiders.

I am not in favour of the pilots being jailed by the way, I would rather the military simply admitted there was a mistake under combat conditions and paid compensation and apologised (and continued to try not to do it again).

The UK MoD is even worse than the US at denying responsibility for anything. They still claim Gulf War Syndrome has nothing to do with service in GW1.

alva · June 19, 2003, 11:51

Quote:

Fratricidal casualties in WW II were in the tens of thousands, but that got lost in the background of all the other casualties.

IIRC it was something like 10%.

(or was that in Vietnam?hmm, could be vietnam, almost sure it was.)

optimus2861 · June 19, 2003, 12:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
From what little I know of this case, the pilot was following SOP and disengaged when told to.

Not entirely accurate; the pilot requested permission to fire on the target, not knowing who it was on the ground. Permission was denied pending identification of who was on the ground; moments later, one pilot invoked self-defence and made his bombing run. Before the smoke had cleared from the bomb hit, the pilot got the call on the radio that the troops were friendlies.

One point made during the hearings that has stuck with me, is that in between the time the pilot first requested permission to fire, and the time he invoked self-defence, he could've been well away from the "danger" zone, but instead opted to circle around again for a closer look, which may have contributed to his feeling threatened enough to invoke self-defence.

I'd be OK with the pilots not getting court-martialled or formally charged with any crime, but I would like to see some form of reprimand meted out because I don't think their actions can be entirely excused by the fog of war.

DinoDoc · June 19, 2003, 12:36

Quote:

Originally posted by optimus2861
I would like to see some form of reprimand meted out because I don't think their actions can be entirely excused by the fog of war.

I'd rather the Air Force stop giving out speed to its pilots.

DinoDoc · June 20, 2003, 09:22

Bump

SlowwHand · June 20, 2003, 09:43

It was a terrible accident, but just that; an accident.

Also,
nanananana. RAH got in trou-ble!

PLATO · June 20, 2003, 09:50

Flying around at 600+ mph with combat going on all around you and having to interpret info from various electronic sources and having to stay in verbal communication with a base seems like a lot to expect from a pilot. Generally, I think, they do an excellent job. Unfortunately, they are human and make mistakes. Fortunately, they are few and far between. How many sorties were flow? Thousands and thousands.

While I believe that these two need discipline for not being able to perform up to expectations, I don't think it is appropriate to imprison them for 64 years.

Amadan · June 20, 2003, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'd rather the Air Force stop giving out speed to its pilots.

An issue that was raised by the defense (Chicago Sun Times: The pilots' attorneys raised the possibility that amphetamines--dubbed "go pills'--that the Air Force prescribed for the pilots impaired their judgment.)

These have been shown to cause impaired judgement, and most likely had a great deal to do with the pilots actions.

Tingkai · June 21, 2003, 06:08

Quote:

Originally posted by DinoDoc
I'd rather the Air Force stop giving out speed to its pilots.

Yeah, isn't it interesting how the military was so gung-ho on prosecuting these pilots until the defence lawyers raised the issue of amphetimes. Once the drug issue gets raised, the government suddenly decides it doesn't want a public court martial.

A trial could have put the spotlight on how the military forces pilots to take uppers.

Now we'll never know whether drugs played a big role in the accident. We'll never know whether there are systematic problems with sending National Guard units into combat.

And of course, the pilots get off with a slap on the wrist even though they deliberately disobeyed orders, even though they violated standard operating procedures, even though the pilot who dropped the bomb lied when he declared self-defence, even though they failed to get a proper briefing of their mission (the pilots were the squadron commanding officer and the squadron mission commander).

The American military had a chance to investigate the causes of the accident and then implement new policies to prevent future accidents. Instead, everything gets swept under the carpet.

What a farce.

KrazyHorse · June 21, 2003, 11:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Cruddy
From what little I know of this case, the pilot was following SOP and disengaged when told to.

a) No he wasn't
b) No he didn't

He was flying too low (against standing orders)
He rolled in for a closer look and released the bomb after being told to hold off (not to disengage...but to hold at a safe distance)
He used the flimsy excuse that he felt threatened by small-arms fire (enough so that his safest action was to get close and drop a bomb rather than to run away and hold at a safe distance/altitude)

He's a f*cking nincompoop, and a danger to anybody underneath him.

Uncle Sparky · June 21, 2003, 12:13

The Afghani war was a failure. About 15% of Afghanistan is under American friendly government control (if you can call it control). Foreign troops will be needed indefinately to prop up what government there is.

The results of the trial don't surprise me. The US has never cared about friendly fire and will never take steps to reduce allied casualties.

So, did anyone hear the final friendly fire score from the Iraq war ? It had passed 50 (military) when I lost count.

Has there ever been a definative number released on Iraqi troups killed ? I know they were evil scum sucking fiends, but just for the fun of it, lets count them as humans. Were there any numbers released on civilian casualties?

But the operation was a success. Oil is peacefully flowing out of Iraq and into American controlled bank accounts.

The sacrifice was worth it.