Friendly Fire from american planes that killed british troop

An interesting event that may have implications on this:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6339021.stm
Basically, a US marine killed an Italian Intelligence Service operative, was tried in the US, and not convicted. Now the Italian courts have ordered that the Marine face trial in Italy.

Could be the start of a precedent, might not be though.

Not being flippant, but our friends over the water have always had a reputation for being a little trigger happy

In the second world war there was a joke doing the rounds -

When British bombers flew over, the Germans took cover
When German bombers flew over, the British took cover
When American bombers flew over, everyone took cover

many a true word spoken in jest

[northwind]

Do you seriously want soldiers that are too afraid to do their job in case they get torn apart in court afterwards? This was hardly reckless... And comparing it with civilian manslaughter is, IMO, just unrealistic, civilians don't tend to work with heavy weaponry in an environment where people are trying to kill you and others on the ground.

TBH, I'm not even convinced it was the pilot's fault- they had clearance it seems, and they had confirmation from the ground that there were no friendly targets in the area. Obviously it went wrong somewhere further up- blaming the guy who pulled the trigger makes no sense to me.

Originally Posted by northwind

Do you seriously want soldiers that are too afraid to do their job in case they get torn apart in court afterwards? This was hardly reckless... And comparing it with civilian manslaughter is, IMO, just unrealistic, civilians don't tend to work with heavy weaponry in an environment where people are trying to kill you and others on the ground.

TBH, I'm not even convinced it was the pilot's fault- they had clearance it seems, and they had confirmation from the ground that there were no friendly targets in the area. Obviously it went wrong somewhere further up- blaming the guy who pulled the trigger makes no sense to me.

100% agree with the above. Well put northy

Originally Posted by northwind

Do you seriously want soldiers that are too afraid to do their job in case they get torn apart in court afterwards? This was hardly reckless... And comparing it with civilian manslaughter is, IMO, just unrealistic, civilians don't tend to work with heavy weaponry in an environment where people are trying to kill you and others on the ground.

TBH, I'm not even convinced it was the pilot's fault- they had clearance it seems, and they had confirmation from the ground that there were no friendly targets in the area. Obviously it went wrong somewhere further up- blaming the guy who pulled the trigger makes no sense to me.

I'm by no means saying that everything that happens in a military setting should be dealt with in a civilian court. Of course that's ludicrous.

However, having said that, the ultimate responsibility for pulling the trigger is the pilots, and the pilots alone. If at a military inquest he could show (or someone on his behalf could) that his actions were as a direct result of information that other people provided, then IMO, the guy pulling the trigger isn't at fault. However, if there's any uncertainty, that's a different story.

I disagree with the fact that he had explicit permission to open fire, I don't remember the ground controller authorising it (I could be wrong there though). It could be that during combat, armed forces are expected to use discretion & take out enemy targets they perceive to be of threat to allied forces without explicit permission from HQ. That would then allow for adaptability.

However, in this specific case, the pilots voiced concerns of seeing orange markers. Yes, they were told no friendlies were in the area. But in that situation, I'd like to think that I'd see that as "Well, I'm not sure if that orange blob is really rockets, or if it's an allie marker. Maybe HQ got it wrong, maybe there are friendlies in the area." Having never been in that situation, that's all hypothetical.

To me, the pilots come across as being trigger happy, pretty much deciding very early on to "get him." IMO that's a bad state of mind to be in, in a combat situation or not.

We can "armchair warrior" this all we want. It won't change the fact that somebody died in a stupid incident in a pointless war.

Originally Posted by Razor

We can "armchair warrior" this all we want. It won't change the fact that somebody died in a stupid incident in a pointless war.

Its not pointless at all! George Bush is getting his Oil cheap now!

Everything else aside, Orange rockets? WTF????

Originally Posted by PsychoCannon

Everything else aside, Orange rockets? WTF????

Would you rather have Vodafone red rockets?






Sorry, someone had to Taxiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii

[northwind]

Originally Posted by Baph

However, having said that, the ultimate responsibility for pulling the trigger is the pilots, and the pilots alone. If at a military inquest he could show (or someone on his behalf could) that his actions were as a direct result of information that other people provided, then IMO, the guy pulling the trigger isn't at fault. However, if there's any uncertainty, that's a different story.

I disagree with the fact that he had explicit permission to open fire, I don't remember the ground controller authorising it (I could be wrong there though). It could be that during combat, armed forces are expected to use discretion & take out enemy targets they perceive to be of threat to allied forces without explicit permission from HQ. That would then allow for adaptability.

Point is, there was no uncertainty. They voiced their concerns, they was told "there are no friendly units in that area", and acted accordingly. They were on engage-at-will orders, which means you don't ask permission to shoot, or so I'm told.

Turn it around... That British convoy comes under attack from a large group of insurgents... Should they wait till they're completely, utterly 100% sure, with confirmation and explicit authority to fire, before firing? Or is it more important that they're flexible enough to be able to react quickly? It's cost a life here, how many lives does it save that you'll never hear about?

If I make a mistake, then I get slapped wrists, but if I make a mistake but with the acceptance and confirmation that it's OK from my colleagues, you won't get far trying to blame me alone...