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.
Originally posted by budski
There do seem to be more incidents of FF involving us troops....
Originally posted by Johnmike
My condolences and even apologies go out to anyone and any nation that was harmed by such tragedies. However, you must understand that it is our job to try our own soldiers. Our military represents our government, and to ensure fairness, we have to conduct our own investigations.
I'm sorry that we can't just hand them over, but our military is one unit - and must regulate itself. Every member represents the whole. If it is found that someone is at fault, I am hopeful that he or she will be punished or otherwise handled accordingly.
[edit on 29-8-2007 by Johnmike]
On September 11, 2002, Schmidt and Umbach were officially charged with 4 counts of negligent manslaughter, 8 counts of aggravated assault, and 1 count of dereliction of duty, but Schmidt's charges were later reduced (on June 30, 2003) to dereliction of duty.
In an official document seen by this newspaper, the Ministry of Defence makes clear that all requests for US service personnel to give evidence at British inquests will be turned down. The new rules will cover the deaths of the three soldiers killed last week in Afghanistan.
“The US have confirmed categorically that they will not provide witnesses to attend UK inquests,” the document sent to every coroner in England and Wales states. “While coroners may continue to ask for US witnesses to attend . . . they should be aware that there will in all cases be a refusal.”
[emphasis mine]
Originally posted by Implosion
That is quite different to allowing them to be tried in a foreign court.
Originally posted by Vanguard223
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.
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.
Originally posted by andy1033
I always said that bravo two zero was on purpose. There is alot of in fighting between different groups in the military. Even a former english soldier agreed that this may of been done on purpose by the americans(i.e bravo two zero).
Friendly fire is easy to say, but its still killing people.
Originally posted by WestPoint23
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.
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...
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.
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 WestPoint23
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 Chorlton
About time to end this 'special relationship' ??
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...
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.
So I take it you have already convicted them?
I do not know what you expect, the US has launched and promised a thorough investigation and it is currently underway.
Originally posted by Terra Nuovo Umanita
reply to post by quintar
is that information from Canadian military personnel or American?
Originally posted by devilwasp
Why was the tape classified though? Did it contain military sensitive material or is it because it shows the actual incident.
Originally posted by intrepid
Oh, that's nice. It took a helluva lot of Googling just to find out the pilots name that killed 4 and wounded more Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan in 2002. Want to know the result of the US military's reaction?
On September 11, 2002, Schmidt and Umbach were officially charged with 4 counts of negligent manslaughter, 8 counts of aggravated assault, and 1 count of dereliction of duty, but Schmidt's charges were later reduced (on June 30, 2003) to dereliction of duty.
en.wikipedia.org...
$8000 fine. That's $2000 per life taken, not to mention the wounded. With allies like these, do we need enemies?
Yeah, yeah, let's leave it up to the US military tribunals. They're REALLY fair.