Video From The Daily Show, Marines In Berkeley

[Archangel M]

Friendly fire incidents happen but sometimes they can be prevented, one in particular happened in Afghanistan and mates of one of my students were killed. The problem comes however when our allies won't acknowledge it happened and won't provide evidence in the coroners court to say what happened. It's not a blame thing until people start trying to cover it up. Families want to know how their children have died.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/us-must-attend-friendlyfire-inquests-425148.html

BTW there was no "cover up" the US just refused to send US military personel to Britan for an inquest. We dont do that. Our soldiers are accountable to OUR military courts only. And OUR punishments.

From what I understand the British Military and our Military were satisfied with whatever investigation took place. It was once some Assistiant Deputy Corner declared the incident "criminal" (where HIS expertise on military law comes from or where his authority begins and ends is foriegn to me) that the trouble started.

The US military never allows active duty military personnel to be tried by a foreign, unaccountable, court. All US military service members are subject to the UCMJ, as such we conduct our own investigations. If we find the individuals guilty we will punish them accordingly. However if they are acquitted and found not guilty, that's it, no double jeopardy pony show in foreign courts, that opens up too many possibilities. Biased cases, different standards, etc... In order to ensure equality for all soldiers only the US military is allowed to investigate and try service members. It has always been the case when it comes to the US military.

 

[Tez3]

I think you mistake what a coroners court is for in this country. It is solely to determine the cause of death, it does not try people nor does it hand out punishments. It is the same, if you like as a board of enquiry under oath.
They merely wanted to determine the cause of death and if satisfied it was an accident would have ruled it as such. In cases of non accidental deaths the court will rule on the evidence provided and if they decide it was murder they would have ruled as such. It's then up to the police and the criminal courts to try the case if a suspect is found.
American service people were only be called to testify as to what they saw/did etc. There is no reason why they shouldn't do this even if it turned out to be their fault.They weren't there to be tried or punished, the coroners court doesn't have the powers for that. They were asked to be witnesses nothing more.
There are currently over ten cases of friendly fire incidents waiting for a coroners finding.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...h-soldiers-killed-in-us-airstrike-462924.html

 

[Archangel M]

Regardless. Our military system of justice stands. American soldiers will not be put before a foreign court.

It seems like the coroner had already made a determination that the deaths were "criminal" and "unlawful" anyway. Because the pilots were not "acting in self defense" ??? WTF??? Is that the standard in war now? You cant bomb any enemy target without letting them get a shot off at you first if thats the standard. It sounds like a "bring the guilty parties before me for judgment" situation. I wonder if the same standard will be applied to the British soldiers I referenced upthread?

All info was shared with your Ministry of Defense anyway...

"There was a complete investigation back in 2003 carried out by central command in cooperation with the UK," Lieutenant-Colonel Catherine Reardon, a US air force spokeswoman, said. "There were UK air and army LNOs (liaison officers) there. All the information was shared."

 

[Tez3]

Regardless. Our military system of justice stands. American soldiers will not be put before a foreign court.

It seems like the coroner had already made a determination that the deaths were "criminal" and "unlawful" anyway. Because the pilots were not "acting in self defense" ??? WTF??? Is that the standard in war now? You cant bomb any enemy target without letting them get a shot off at you first if thats the standard. It sounds like a "bring the guilty parties before me for judgment" situation. I wonder if the same standard will be applied to the British soldiers I referenced upthread?

All info was shared with your Ministry of Defense anyway...

My Ministry of Defence? yes that's right they are my employers and it's my colleagues who actually investigate these events. Are we satisfied we have been given the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, no we are absolutely not however our govenments want to spin it. We absolutely did not receive the information we deemed we needed.
You have missed the point, the coroner cannot determine before hearing evidence what the finding will be. the coroner cannot bring any judgement on any person. The merely determine the cause of death.
Yes the standard is upheld for British soldiers and I swear to that.

 

[Archangel M]

What the hell does a corner know about military policy and procedure? Over here a corner is a doctor that determines cause of death by examining a body. Here is gotta be obvious that the American Pilots shot that poor soldier. Its not like the USAF was saying "what friendly fire incident???" And the corner has to prove the projectile came from a US plane. Beyond that its up to the military to determine if policy or procedure was violated either intentionally or through criminal negligence. Seems outside a corners area of expertise.

And I got the point clearly. We do not put our soldiers before foreign courts.

 

[Tez3]

This is from 2005.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/iraq/article422701.ece

But rather than the blue on blues this is what is upsetting.It has been a constant problem ever since that certain authorities are withholding evidence and trying to spin. Tragedies happen in wartime but covering them up is not the way to go.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=e06da463d7

 

[Archangel M]

Especially when statistically the US has the largest presence in theater and is doing most of the fighting and

dying. [dated info]

American casualties and British casualties

Finally, the number of British deaths in Iraq remains overshadowed by the number of American deaths. Where 109 Britons have died, 2,426 Americans have died.

Over the past three years, there have been two separate months in which more Americans have died than Britons have died in more than three years.

In April 2004, 135 Americans died.

In November 2004, 137 Americans died.

The American military is playing a central role in each theater and so it's to be expected that American forces would be responsible for the majority of friendly fire incidents. Also remember that not all friendly fire incidents result in death. In some cases there would be exchange of gun fire followed by a realization -- for what ever reason -- of the fire being exchanged with a friendly.

Further, I sincerely wonder if media bias comes into play in reporting friendly fire incidents. Then again perhaps friendly fire incidents involving other nations are so rare in occurrence due to the small size of their forces that while they may have occured, they just have not reached the level of killing someone. Perhaps they wounded troops instead or maybe not.

I'm actually impressed that in a conflict including hundreds of thousands of troops in a rotation system that so few possibly have been killed due to friendly fire. If you compare this with prior conflicts you'd see far higher rates. Yet, even with these improvements and changes people see a lack of perfection as the system being broken. It isn't. Something can be imperfect and yet not broken. As stated before, we're seeing a shift from the "lives of soldiers mean little" era in warfare itself -- not necessarily refering to the mindset of those in charge -- to a "every life means something" era where what ever practical can be done is done to minimize losses while fighting a war.

 

[Archangel M]

Details From The UK SUN:
On the tape, one pilot — call sign POPOV36 - appears to gloat sickeningly during the attack.

He is egged on by the second — call sign POPOV35 — who encourages: “Get him, get him!”

Looking down at the chaos as a soldier drags burning comrades from the vehicles, he adds: “It looks like he is hauling ***. Ha Ha.”
Grief ... Matty’s body comes home
Grief ... Matty’s body comes home

Gimme an ****ingbreak. If they were the enemy (which these pilots obviously thought they were) would that "gloating" have been a big deal? The SUN is implying that the US Pilots were enjoying shooting UK Soldiers intentionally. Talk about media bias!

 

[Sukerkin]

Angel, you might make a better case with cooler words.

As it is, you're not going to make much headway attempting to make the case that the American military can do no wrong, especially when the British army took more caualties from our allies than we did from the 'enemy' during the Gulf War Part 2 in 3D with Surround Sound.

That reputation for Blue-on-Blue is not new. It's been earned in many places around the world and at many times. Even my grandfather from his time at Montecassino during the Second World War said:

"When the Germans attacked, we ducked. When we attacked, the Germans ducked. When the American's attacked everybody ducked".

Whether it's deserved or not, that's the global image you have to deal with. In such a picture, you can see why refusing to even give evidence in person is seen in the light it is.

 

[Archangel M]

We Brits Invented Friendly Fire

...These quips rest upon the twin assumptions that ‘friendly fire’ is a relatively new phenomenon and that only the Americans are guilty of it. Both preconceptions are untrue. What is more, Britain, an historically warfaring nation, has in the past been one of the worst offenders of killing its own in ‘friendly fire’ incidents. ...

But the shift is not merely technological, nor cultural, mirroring our risk-averse society. It is also nakedly political. The fact that both Dara O Briain and Jeremy Clarkson, two television personalities from opposite sides of the political spectrum, make morbid jokes about ‘American soldiers shooting our Tommies’ tells us a great deal. One thing that unites the traditional left and non-neocon right in this country is its hatred and resentment of the US and Americans. The left hates them because they see them as imperialist bullies and morons (‘Ha ha! Look at George W Bush! He can’t speak properly!&#8217, while the old-fashioned right has always resented Britain being usurped by the US in its role as the most powerful country in the world, and by a people they also regard as philistines (‘Look here my old colonial friend, I think you’ll find “colour” is spelt with a “u”’ – ignoring the fact, incidentally, that were it not for reforms made in British English in the eighteenth century, we would now be writing about the ‘war on terrour’, or lamenting that the Iraqi invasion was an ‘errour&#8217.

 

[Sukerkin]

You miss my point, sir.

My last sentence was where the 'meat' lay viz, if you're dealing with a 'perception', then you have to work within the scope that view gives you otherwise your odds of influencing opinion are much reduced.

I'll have a look at that last link you posted as I'm interested to see what it says but given that our military, in times gone by, has quite happily fired into a close quarters battle I doubt that I'll find anything startling.

We could exchange such things 'till the cows come home - my own most disbelievingly memorable being from the Gulf War Part 1 where I saw an Apache quite merrily stitching up a platoon of Bradley's and their fleeing occupants. If I as an English civilian could tell that those were units from their own army and those supposedly professional pilots could not, what conclusions would you draw?

As I said, it gains nothing to circumvent the core points with such matters. Reason is your only tool (well, that and unbiased evidence sources) when you debate an issue online.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Folks, this threads moved all over the place. We're now arguing over the concept of so called "friendly fire", something which is not very friendly, and nothing new. General Stonewall Jackson was shot by his own men who mistook him for an enemy, in 1863.

For a more detailed list, see here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire

You can point fingers and get pissed, but the truth is, all sides in war have shot their own, and their allies. It's a tragedy, but in a battle field environment, it will happen.

Before anyone starts going down the "well, you nations reputation" train, I'd read that link.

Seriously.

 

[Archangel M]

If the other nations had more troops in the field, they would be having more of these incidents themselves. Its basic statistics as I see it.

Good link. I think the RAF sinking an entire Brit flotilla in 1944 is a good counterpoint to the quip about the Apache's shooting up some Bradleys.

BTW things look different from the air.

 

[MBuzzy]

Gimme an f'in break. If they were the enemy (which these pilots obviously thought they were) would that "gloating" have been a big deal? The SUN is implying that the US Pilots were enjoying shooting UK Soldiers intentionally. Talk about media bias!

Being active duty, I feel the need to stay as far from this conversation as possible. Just a few things that I feel I must say.

First, gloating over any kill is a punishable offense, especially since everything is recorded. I've seen enough cockpit and camera feeds to know how the pilots and targeters actually behave and for the most part, it is 100% business and 100% professional.

Second, there is A LOT of interservice rivalry, there always will be. Every force will always be saying that they are better than the others. But let me say that the current push in ALL branches of service is a JOINT FORCE. Joint taskings are the most common kind and we are pushed and trained more and more toward a joint environment where we act hand in hand with every service. There is no more "Navy's job" or "Army's job" there is the "US military's job."

No matter who is responsible, blue on blue kills are never a good thing and they are NEVER intentional.

Last, I personally met and ran missions with Aussies, Italians, Koreans, and Iraqis. If the country has a single soldier there - they're ok in my book. Every country with a military has a special forces unit. Every service has a special forces unit. Each has their own role and their own strengths and weaknesses - including PJs, SEALs, Force Recon, Army SF, SAS, and every other specialized tactical combat unit.

Personally, I've learned that its best to just play nice and respect EVERYONE's forces.

 

[Tez3]

I think my point hs been missed totally I'm afraid.
My point is not that the friendly fire incidents have happened in the theatre of war, it's that OUR governments seem determined to cover such things up.

http://www.nottinghamcity.gov.uk/si...hire_coroners_service/the_coroner_s_court.htm

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

From my perspective:

Let me live in ignorant bliss, believing that my child/spouse/parent died in attempting to defeat an enemy, rather than accidentally due to friendly fire.

 

[Tez3]

From my perspective:

Let me live in ignorant bliss, believing that my child/spouse/parent died in attempting to defeat an enemy, rather than accidentally due to friendly fire.

The problem now though is that very little now isn't seen. Take the recent events in Burma and Tibet where thankfully we are able to know what is going on through brave people filming events on their mobile phones and using the internet. The same applies in war zones.
I've talked to soldiers who have survived blue on blues and also to a couple of famlies who have lost people, the anger for the most part is against war and secondly against the event not so much as the people who caused it.
There is an appearance of arrogance to them when the powers that be refuse to allow their people to come as witnesses to the inquests. The families WANT to understand not necessarily blame, they aren't stupid and know that things like this happen. They want to know also how it can be avoided in future.
All they and we are asking for is openess, that the people concerned come forward as witnesses to say what happened. They want the truth, however painful and they will face it bravely far better than being caught up in a a mesh of red tape and lies.

 

[Sukerkin]

If the other nations had more troops in the field, they would be having more of these incidents themselves. Its basic statistics as I see it.

Good link. I think the RAF sinking an entire Brit flotilla in 1944 is a good counterpoint to the quip about the Apache's shooting up some Bradleys.

BTW things look different from the air.

It was the guncamera image we were seeing and it was quite clear - as was the voice recorder.

I have no further input into this as a conversation that begins to eat it's own tail is a futile one, especially if one respondant is determined to either misinterpret or reinterpret everything to fit a fixed mould.

 

[Tez3]

It was the guncamera image we were seeing and it was quite clear - as was the voice recorder.

I have no further input into this as a conversation that begins to eat it's own tail is a futile one, especially if one respondant is determined to either misinterpret or reinterpret everything to fit a fixed mould.

I agree, it's pointless trying to discuss an issue when whatever you post is blatently misunderstood.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Our governments do a few things quite well. Covering things up and pointing blame elsewhere are 2 of them.