It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

US will never let 'friendly-fire' witnesses go to a British court

page: 2
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 09:58 AM
link   
Anyone involved in "friendly fire" incidents in war or peace time, under any form of accusation deserves a fair court procedure. US military personnel are protected under American law and have the right to be tried at home, not on foreign soil. Other countries have similar policies as well. Friendly fire can often be complicated situation, and the people involved do not need the added weight of arm chair warriors shoving their opinions into the situation. Officials will do their job properly (hopefully) and the people involved will most likely be judged fairly (again, hopefully). Friendly fire can do harm to international relationships if not handled right, like any other war time incident, but when handled correctly both sides would hopefully come out feeling the situation was dealt with fairly. In a world that is already tipsy internationally, the added weight of bias public opinion should probably be left out of judicial affairs. Now understandably your opinion matters, but it should not affect the ruling of judges. Legal aspects of guilt and innocence is what their profession deals with, not public relations.




posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:02 AM
link   
Once again you miss the point.
It wasnt about someone bieng tried it was about a US citizen giving evidence at an inquest.
An Inquest isnt a trial



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Any information dealing with war time operations, and the people there in involved is considered secret.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terra Nuovo Umanita
Any information dealing with war time operations, and the people there in involved is considered secret.


Except when the details have been plastered all over the newspapers and videos on every Youtube and clone site in the world?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:14 AM
link   
Knowing it happened and knowing the details are to separate things. The people involved were military personnel, and the details of their operations, albeit any accidents, is confidential. Although the fact that the men where killed is well known, the details behind it are still confidential.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terra Nuovo Umanita
Anyone involved in "friendly fire" incidents in war or peace time, under any form of accusation deserves a fair court procedure.



And the Uk no longer has fair trial's? secondly this wouldn't have been a trial it was supposed to have been an inquest where the facts of the incident could have been found out to prevent a similar incident from happening again, but i guess the US military doesn't want that to happen



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Remember the 4 Canadian soldiers who died in the US friendly fire incident back in 2002:



..Others are upset about what they feel is the inadequate response of US President George W Bush to the incident.
He made several public appearances in the hours after the news broke, but only made a brief statement after he was asked a question by a journalist.

Source


Then there's this incident from 2006:



...NATO said the aircraft had engaged friendly forces during a strafing run, using cannons.
"I'm not sure who brought them in and for what reason," said Abthorpe, a member of the Royal Canadian Regiment.
"It wasn't us, of course. We were getting prepped to go out but our first air mission wasn't scheduled until 30 minutes later.

Source



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:24 AM
link   
Never said that, but military information is still confidential, and information about a soldiers death is not always released, not even to American families.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:26 AM
link   
reply to post by quintar
 


is that information from Canadian military personnel or American?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Besides, I don't see how you could possibly think that out investigation would be less thorough?

Then how come there has been no news or updates concerning this investigation of the US's.....the british military has given updates yet the US originally refused to allow the release of the video of the two american jets attacking the british forces...
I wonder why that would be?

Also the pentagon has been known to be less than truthful concerning friendly fire incidents...shall we remember Corporal Tillmans "Heroic" death?


As for all the extreme centric pro European comments, just remember your past...

We seem to have a longer memory than some westy....afterall wasnt it your own country that tried to annex canada? Atleast in the UK we admit we caused misery and took away freedoms...



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:39 AM
link   
reply to post by devilwasp
 


we did indeed, very long ago, try to invade Canada, and they whupped us a new one. I am not one to deny facts, I am simply stating that situations are complicated.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:53 AM
link   
Indeed they are complicated, that is why inquests take place.
If secrets are involved then the inquest could have been held 'in camera'.
The fact was the US refused outright, which is not the way a civilised country, living by the rule of law conducts itself.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Terra Nuovo Umanita
we did indeed, very long ago, try to invade Canada, and they whupped us a new one. I am not one to deny facts, I am simply stating that situations are complicated.

Last time I checked mate you werent westy, unless he's got two accounts which I doubt. So I'll ask you to please mind your own buisness....



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 11:06 AM
link   
Bit harsh there huh, no need to get nasty, im just trying to have a good polite conversation



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23

As for all the extreme centric pro European comments, just remember your past...


You seem to forget that we (Europe that is) are your past, infact you are our descendents - Americans are no different to the whole of Europe (scale wise and historically), a bastardised continent of cultures & races. But as far as the history books go with America, the ink is still hasn't dried, so please get off your pedestal, no one is going to thank you for anything.

Back on topic....

Whilst I don't agree with insular military standards, you can understand the reasoning behind it (as you stated WestPoint), as it protects military personnel from a potentially bias and unfair trial - especially with media attention and resulting negative influence; not to mention there certainly seems to be an anti-USA European attitude of late. (I'd blame your president, not your forces but that is another discussion altogether!)

On the other hand, the information concerning these events should be made available. There has to be accountability all round.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Fratricide happens. All the time.

It hurts the soldiers who committed the fratricide worse than the soldiers that died. There is no reason to make them talk about it so soon, except to their brothers in arms.

Anyone who has suffered from PTSD knows what I am saying, the rest of you need to keep your noses out of war. If you don’t like it that your citizens are dying from friendly fire then don’t let your politicians go to war! If you are going to allow your nation to go war, then stay out of it and let the professionals handle it.

There are things that go on in the human mind after combat, especially after an incident like this, that none of you who havnt seen war will ever understand. Dont be so cold as to wish these soldiers have to relive a moment more horrible than any of you have ever seen.

Stay in your lane. Let the military handle the war and you go handle the restaurant or office you work in.

Don’t like that? Then don’t send us to fight.


[edit on 29-8-2007 by cavscout]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 03:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by cavscout
Fratricide happens. All the time.

It hurts the soldiers who committed the fratricide worse than the soldiers that died. There is no reason to make them talk about it so soon, except to their brothers in arms.

Anyone who has suffered from PTSD knows what I am saying, the rest of you need to keep your noses out of war. If you don’t like it that your citizens are dying from friendly fire then don’t let your politicians go to war! If you are going to allow your nation to go war, then stay out of it and let the professionals handle it.

There are things that go on in the human mind after combat, especially after an incident like this, that none of you who havnt seen war will ever understand. Dont be so cold as to wish these soldiers have to relive a moment more horrible than any of you have ever seen.

Stay in your lane. Let the military handle the war and you go handle the restaurant or office you work in.

Don’t like that? Then don’t send us to fight.


[edit on 29-8-2007 by cavscout]

No offence cav scout, but frankly why does it seem to happen quite a lot?
I understand that war is hell and mistakes are made but why does this only seem to happen in such high numbers with US forces? Sure there is the sheer number of US troops to take into account but even still.
I mean come on surely you must see how high the numbers are, I dont think anyone here is blaming it on the pilots of the aircraft afterall they did recieve information that there were no friendly units in the area.

Surely there are ways around friendly fire or to atleast reduce the risk of it, is there not? And if not then why not? This shouldnt be about blame it should be about how to stop it from happening again and if thats not possible then how do we reduce the chance of it happening again?



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:08 PM
link   
There do seem to be more incidents of FF involving us troops....

But I digress,
the servicemen in question should give evidence at the inquest, end of story - or does the "special relationship" only work one way?

This is akin to the US telling the UK to sod off.



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Americans would be royally pissed if a UK unit wiped out an American one in a "friendly fire" incident and the UK turned round and told the US investigators it wouldn't release the personnel to give evidence or appear at hearings - and you know thats true.


If the UK had already conducted an internal investigation and found the soldiers to not be guilty, and had shared their findings and information with the US then I don't see any ground for complaint. Holding meaningless "hearings" for more "evidence" when there will not be another trial is not only redundant but also a political and public show. I agree that the US should share all information it gains with the UK. however I do not agree with sending our service members to the UK after the fact for "inquest" and hearings...


Originally posted by Chorlton
...but simply about them giving evidence at an inquest, to clarify matters.


If for some reason the information, findings and reports prepared by the US military is not satisfactory then perhaps a UK delegation can come to the states and ask a few private questions to the troops involved. However these questions would have to be done in private and not under oath with the pilots fully reserving the right to not answer question. If they have already been cleared by a US military investigation then they should not have to endure another public spectacle, the results of which do not really apply to them in any way. As I said before the information and "evidence" should be shared with the UK and an explanation given the families, an if the UK so choose it may publish a "clean" report for the public. Clean in the sense that it leaves out classified or sensitive military information.


Originally posted by Chorlton
Some parents want to know how their sons were slaughtered by gung ho, trigger happy pilots.


So I take it you have already convicted them? This is why US troops should not be subject to foreign courts, this type of bias is hard to contain in a matter such as this. Nevertheless if the result of the investigation does not come to the conclusion that it was as a result of "gung ho, trigger happy pilots" then you would consider it a "white wash" or an improper investigation? Is any result that contradicts your pre conceived notion flawed?


Originally posted by Chorlton
...if you can point me to any evidence for US soldiers being tried for friendly fire against UK soliders?


Sure... Link


Originally posted by infinite
You mean creating international courts and enforcing the rule of law?


International courts are not necessary when a country is fully capable of enforcing it's own laws and regulations. Subjecting your soldiers to such a trail was an individual choice, no one was forced...


Originally posted by infinite
We don't whitewash in Europe, we face our crimes.


I'm sure, in any case we also make people face their crimes, if indeed they are found guilt to have committed such... Your standards may be different hence why you seem to dislike our way of doing things.


Originally posted by infinite
I mean, you didn't sign the ICC treaty because your "perfect" troops would be in the Hague for Abu Ghraib and Fallujah abuse.


Some are, courtesy of the US military. We do not recognize the ICC in order to keep people like you and others from ever having a say in cases involving US military personnel. The standards must be fair, equal and unbiased.


Originally posted by John Percival Hackworth
Assuming of course, you guys actually BOTHER to investigate...


Why wouldn't we? US military personnel are often subjected to court martial for their alleged crimes, if there is a reason to suspect foul play.


Originally posted by devilwasp
Then how come there has been no news or updates concerning this investigation of the US's.....


I do not know what you expect, the US has launched and promised a thorough investigation and it is currently underway. Something like this cannot be resolved in a matter of days or hours, it will take a significant amount of time. And far as I'm aware the British have also not released any new information besides releasing press statements in relation to the incident.

US To Launch Investigation


Originally posted by devilwasp
...yet the US originally refused to allow the release of the video of the two american jets attacking the british forces...


You mean the case involving the A-10 Warthog? If so then you should know that the US did sent the classified tape to the British (albeit after some time) for their inquest, we simply did not want it to be made public. Which it was...


The Pentagon is sensitive about friendly fire incidents, particularly those involving British troops. It regards US airmen as unfairly stereotyped as trigger-happy.

It is still angry over the leaking earlier this year of a classified video it sent to Britain for the inquest into the death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull, killed by a US air attack in Iraq in 2003.

Guardian


Further Explanation For The Delay


Originally posted by devilwasp
Also the pentagon has been known to be less than truthful concerning friendly fire incidents...shall we remember Corporal Tillmans "Heroic" death?


That case I can agree with, given the circumstance is was badly mishandled and not proper. However we are in the process of trying to correct that mistake.


Originally posted by devilwasp
...wasnt it your own country that tried to annex canada?


Yes, during the War of 1812 against the British and their colonies, i.e. Canada. The British were using their Canadian colony to launch attacks into the continental United States. Frankly though I don't see how this relates...


Originally posted by SKUNK2
...could imagine a British soldier accidently killing an American!!! They would get strung up and shipped of to America that fast his feet wouldn't even touch the floor...


If the British allow him to be extradited and stand trial in a US military court he would be presumed innocent until proven guilty. However that is the choice of the British government and military. I would have no problem with them conducing their own investigation and sharing the results/ information with us. No matter what conclusion they arrive at I would accept it and move one. Knowing it is not my right to presume sovereignty over another countries military personnel.


Originally posted by SKUNK2
...look at that poor bloke that hacked Nasa and is serving 75 years in jail...


That "poor bloke" which broke the law is in the process of paying for it, and he also happen to be a civilian. Totally different situation, with different laws and regulations. US citizens can also be extradited to the UK to face trial if they have committed a crime against it. In any case, even for civilian extraditions there are conditions and terms which both countries must agree to.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by WestPoint23]



posted on Aug, 29 2007 @ 07:46 PM
link   
Sorry Europeans but we don't hang our people out in the wind to be tried by kangaroo inquisitions. This was a friendly fire incident and an accident. We don't throw out troops to the wolves for making mistakes...even mistakes as serious as this.

We are allies and afford you all the same courtesies. These guys will be put on trial by the UCMJ. If they are found guilty of negligence...not MURDER as some of you are saying, they will be punished.

I know it's fashionable to hate America but some of you fools are rabid. Anyone claiming the U.S. does these kind of things on purpose can go straight to hell, you're not thinking rationally.

[edit on 29-8-2007 by Vanguard223]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join