Two US pilots will not face criminal charges

[DaveC]

http://www.mytelus.com/news/article.do?pageID=canada_home&articleID=1349009

[Jakub]

Being a proud Canadian, I'm glad.

Shit happens. This is war.

I mean, if people aren't allowed to make mistakes in war, then god help western civilization.

The lives of these pilots are already in tatters, and punishing them for what's clearly a mistake won't bring back the lives of the Canadian soldiers. All it will is create more needless misery. It's at a time like this that people need to forgive and forget.


They made a mistake and should be held accountable.

What is wrong with these people? They even concede it was a mistake but mistakes are bound to happen anywhere, especially during war. How can you punish people so severely for inevitable slip-ups? It's one thing to reprimand someone so that he doesn't become sloppy, but I seriously doubt that pilots are cursed with flippant, careless attitudes.

[DaveC]

Being a proud Canadian, I'm glad.

Shit happens. This is war.

I mean, if people aren't allowed to make mistakes in war, then god help western civilization.

The lives of these pilots are already in tatters, and punishing them for what's clearly a mistake won't bring back the lives of the Canadian soldiers. All it will is create more needless misery. It's at a time like this that people need to forgive and forget.

I couldn't disagree more. If not criminal charges they need to face military discipline. Schmidt was not in danger and violated standard protocol by engaging before the target was confirmed. That is wreckless and completely undsiciplined. He needs to be held accountable.

[Jakub]

I dunno. I wonder just how many people are willing to wait for the right to fire back when they think they're being attacked. It sounds great in theory but...

[Troy S Goodfellow]

There will likely be military discipline of some kind - probably the suspension of flight privileges. So there will be consequences.

Whether or not this grievous error - and it was more than "just a mistake" - rises to the level of criminal culpability in a war zone is not an easy one. These aren't guys who got a calculation wrong and hit their own men. These are guys who fired on non-hostiles without clear authorization.

Troy

[DaveC]

I dunno. I wonder just how many people are willing to wait for the right to fire back when they think they're being attacked. It sounds great in theory but...

Please read up on the facts. They were not in any real danger. In fact they were at a safe distance and chose to engage before they knew if the targets were friendly or not. That is wrong no matter how you look at it.

[Jakub]

Please read up on the facts. They were not in any real danger. In fact they were at a safe distance and chose to engage before they knew if the targets were friendly or not. That is wrong no matter how you look at it.
"Facts"? Were you there? In the pilot's seat?

I'm sorry, but I've lost so much faith in the media over the past few years that I have a difficult time accepting anything that comes from them.

[Troy S Goodfellow]

The facts are, they claim they saw small arms fired horizontally - no serious threat to jet pilots with lots of fuel. They probably had time to wait for a reply from central command before firing.

And if you don't get your information from the untrustworthy media, Jakub, how have you come to your conclusions on this?

Troy

[DaveC]

Please read up on the facts. They were not in any real danger. In fact they were at a safe distance and chose to engage before they knew if the targets were friendly or not. That is wrong no matter how you look at it.
"Facts"? Were you there? In the pilot's seat?

I'm sorry, but I've lost so much faith in the media over the past few years that I have a difficult time accepting anything that comes from them.

Just Google a bit:

Link (http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=a604279d8023a93e&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035776771658&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724)

[Jakub]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=a604279d8023a93e&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035776771658&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724
Just read my post before googling to an article from a Canadian newspaper, after I specifically said I tend to distrust their reports.

[XPav]

Well, the pilot that killed 20 Italians civilians in the cable car wasn't guilty, so I'm not surprised that the pilots who killed 4 Canadian soldiers aren't guilty.

[DaveC]

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?GXHC_gx_session_id_=a604279d8023a93e&pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1035776771658&call_pageid=968332188854&col=968350060724
Just read my post before googling to an article from a Canadian newspaper, after I specifically said I tend to distrust their reports.

They are reporting what was said in a hearing. What more do you want?

[Aleck]

Please read up on the facts. They were not in any real danger. In fact they were at a safe distance and chose to engage before they knew if the targets were friendly or not. That is wrong no matter how you look at it.
"Facts"? Were you there? In the pilot's seat?

I'm sorry, but I've lost so much faith in the media over the past few years that I have a difficult time accepting anything that comes from them.

Does anyone else find it ironic that a guy who is an editor-in-chief of a (gaming) media outlet doesn't trust the media?

Just askin'....

asjunk

[Brad Grenz]

I think that may make the most sense, actually.

[Jakub]

They are reporting what was said in a hearing. What more do you want?
Yeah, but are they selectively reporting? What's their angle? What's the theme of the story? What is the spin of the editor, hired by the president, who's a direct appointee of the ownership, who have their own agenda?

Reporters don't report. They're told their angle and then present the facts in a way that supports that angle.

The Star has been disgustingly biased in this matter. For a relatively conservative newspaper, they've taken an extremely liberal tack on this. I'm waiting for the day that someone at the Star proposes an international court in which people who lose family members in war can sue the country that attacked them, whether it was victorious or not.

[snowmyr]

I'm sorry, but I've lost so much faith in the media over the past few years that I have a difficult time accepting anything that comes from them.

Yeah, in fact the pilots have probably already been court marshalled and shot. The media is just spinning it as "letting them off the hook".

[algahar]

just curious, what if those werent Canadians but Americans that they killed accidentally? would they be court martialled?

[MikeJ]

just curious, what if those werent Canadians but Americans that they killed accidentally? would they be court martialled?

What I'm curious about is what the reaction might be if a couple of Canadian pilots bombed US troops against orders. To be honest, I don't have a really good sense of how the American public would react in such a situation.

[Jakub]

just curious, what if those werent Canadians but Americans that they killed accidentally? would they be court martialled?

What I'm curious about is what the reaction might be if a couple of Canadian pilots bombed US troops against orders. To be honest, I don't have a really good sense of how the American public would react in such a situation.
I think the Canadians would be hung out to dry if they'd bombed Americans.

If Americans bombed Americans, I suspect the same thing would occur as happened now - assuming it ever became an issue in the first place.

[Alan Dunkin]

Reporters don't report? Give me a fucking break. Maybe in your small corner of the world the school newspaper didn't give a crap about the time you got stuck in the toilet, but a lot of reporters do exactly just that - report without some screwed up view of reality you seem to relish in.

The facts of the matter are that:

1) The aircrew was told not to engage after they reported they were getting fired on by "artillery"

2) The pilot goes "I'm engaging, I feel I'm in danger," refering to the fact they wanted to cover their asses in case there was a problem in the future.

3) Seconds after hitting the Canadians the pilot says, "I hope we did the right thing" -- if that was ever in doubt what the fuck did they just disobey orders and engage in the first place? If there is doubt, there is no doubt.

4) They were on a carefully dosed amount of speed at the time, which can affect the decision-making process.

Considering all of that, it's hard to say if they would really be guilty or what a court martial would accomplish - not a lot of good things for the Air Force. So the Air Force sweeps it under the rug, because the Air Force brass and personality is like that - they're a bunch of assholes. For Christ's sake, practically forcing COMBAT PILOTS to take a form of SPEED is bordering on recklessness all by its lonesome.

So in the end.. I dunno. Reportedly these guys will never have any kind of real job in the Air Force ever again, which is a behind-the-scenes style of punishment that usually befits military service where they don't want to have any more press about the whole deal.

If those were Canadian pilots.. its very possible it would have happened differently, simply because of the way the USAF operates. If it was Americans on Americans, the exact same thing would have happened.

--- Alan

[Jakub]

Sure Alan, believe what you want.

[DaveC]

Sure Alan, believe what you want.

Once again Jakub, just taking the facts alone from different media sources it's fairly easy to discern that they acted against standard procedure and were partly responsible for the deaths of those men. The level of responibility may be debatable, but the the other facts are pretty consistent.