It seems to me that with all this focus on "is the controller to blame" most people are overlooking two important pieces of the puzzle. Firstly and most importantly is the eyewitness account of the jets manouvering at low level from a dependable witness who knew the difference between a Tornado and an F15, and the 1 hour time difference between the two formations. Such a crucuial piece of evidence that seems to be totally discounted by the BOI in their quest for a scapegoat. Secondly the fact that the aircraft altimeters recovered from the crash site showed they had descended through 4000', albeit by a small margin. Surely though if they had been aware of the high ground and had already questioned the descent they would have made sure they stayed at or slightly above that level.
I find it amazing that the station commander writes that pilots are rightly responsible for the safety of their aircraft, but air traffic must take some responsibility for the incident and the aircraft hitting the ground (well thats how i read it) Which is it to be? If air traffic are to take responsibility for these things like terrain avoidance, then they should have ultimate control over aircraft in all situations to avoid this happening again. That of course prohibits the pilots operational freedom.
I am sure every air traffiker takes their duty of care very very importantly. I am also sure that air traffic controllers are there to stop aircraft bumping into each other in the air. Descending to low level must surely be the pilots responsibility, after all the controller only has a map much the same as a pilot. They can't look out of that cockpit to make sure your safe.
Just my humble opinions