Blue on Blue.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - I lied. Guess I will continue to wade in (see - I am too easy to bait!).
I suppose we could continue to twist each other's words to no end. No military force sets off with frat in mind. Should we leave it at that? We'll obviously not agree on much beyond that it seems.
Until someone can provide incontrovertible proof, I'm happy in the assumption that at least the US side was conducted objectively & reached a reasonable conclusion (no matter what it was). However, we may never know for certain (more later on this). As for new findings implemented, not all findings are - refer to FV's post just previous. There will be a cost-benefit analysis - not everyone will agree with it regardless of the decision reached.
Reports? Hardly. Simple common sense says if we continue to conduct these witch-hunts with blood in our eyes to appease bereaved families, we give others pause & hesitation in combat is deadly. Likewise, revealing privileged safety information compromises the entire investigative process & I'm not willing to compromise that simply to appease family members who don't like the answers they've gotten so far.
The King 56 crash of a Portland ANG HC-130 back in the early-mid '90s is a good illustration of what can happen when a family member pushes too hard because they don't like the answers they're getting. The wife of the FE tried to sue Lockheed for design deficiencies because her husband fed the engines with a fuselage tank using aircraft pressurisation until said tank was not only empty, but forced air to the gear-driven pumps & completely cavitated them effectively vapour locking the engines, flamed all four out, & was unable to re-establish fuel flow or restart. She pushed & pushed until she was finally told in no uncertain terms that her husband killed that crew & destroyed that plane by using a somewhat accepted, but very illegal & poor technique.
Sometimes we don't want to know the answers & definitely don't like them.
Of course, I'm in no way implying that Mrs. Hull's husband did anything of the sort. I'm simply illustrating that in virtually all circumstances of human error, good people execute good & sound procedures poorly & the results, in our business, can be very tragic. Manslaughter, murder, recklessness - none of these have any place in most accident findings - that's why we call them accidents because we don't set out to do them intentionally.
Short of willful malice & gross negligence, there should not be any prosecutions of any combat forces = particularly in times of conflict - anywere. Ever. That does not mean incidents should not be investigated in an attempt to learn from our mistakes. If, during the course of an investigation, the above is discovered, then transgressors should be prosecuted to the fullest.
It appears to me there is a radical difference between most of the folks on here and at least me with regard to trust of leadership, the military system, and government. It seems you have a near complete lack of trust in your fellow military, leaders, processes, & government. The way I view it is kinda the way old Ronnie Reagan viewed the Ruskies - 'Trust but verify' - I operate on the assumption of good faith and innocence until given a good reason not to, evaluate what evidence I can, concede I don't know all the facts, & decide if I'm happy - it's a purely personal decision. FWIW, a bereaved family member not happy with an investigation isn't a good reason to give up on a process, organisation, or my fellow military officers who happen to be investigators.
I do not believe the investigators always get it right, but I do believe they take their assignments very seriously, use subject matter experts to verify everything they can, and normally reach reasonable conclusions.
One more rant - The word 'closure' as applied to bereaved family members is a very modern concept and is grossly misused much of the time (IMO). It is an objective term applied to a subjective situation and designed to invoke an emotional response - either positive or negative. As any psychiatrist worth his salt will tell you, grief is a process that often has no end for an individual and there is never an instant where you wake up one day & say, "By golly, I've got all my answers & I can move on now because I have 'closure' since all my questions & concerns have been answered."
Returned from det today - yes, quite the short one, but with sh*te hours - 'tis what we get paid for though.
I suppose we could continue to twist each other's words to no end. No military force sets off with frat in mind. Should we leave it at that? We'll obviously not agree on much beyond that it seems.
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
The question is were these two Inquiries properly conducted to arrive at proper findings that have been properly implemented?
Originally Posted by Chugalug2
Concerning U.K. Coroners Inquests on repatriated combat casualties sacrificing combat capability, I have seen no reports of this. Have you? What can adversely affect combat capability are misleading statements and outright lies by the MOD, and blue on blue incidents, and of course the combination of both!
The King 56 crash of a Portland ANG HC-130 back in the early-mid '90s is a good illustration of what can happen when a family member pushes too hard because they don't like the answers they're getting. The wife of the FE tried to sue Lockheed for design deficiencies because her husband fed the engines with a fuselage tank using aircraft pressurisation until said tank was not only empty, but forced air to the gear-driven pumps & completely cavitated them effectively vapour locking the engines, flamed all four out, & was unable to re-establish fuel flow or restart. She pushed & pushed until she was finally told in no uncertain terms that her husband killed that crew & destroyed that plane by using a somewhat accepted, but very illegal & poor technique.
Sometimes we don't want to know the answers & definitely don't like them.
Of course, I'm in no way implying that Mrs. Hull's husband did anything of the sort. I'm simply illustrating that in virtually all circumstances of human error, good people execute good & sound procedures poorly & the results, in our business, can be very tragic. Manslaughter, murder, recklessness - none of these have any place in most accident findings - that's why we call them accidents because we don't set out to do them intentionally.
Short of willful malice & gross negligence, there should not be any prosecutions of any combat forces = particularly in times of conflict - anywere. Ever. That does not mean incidents should not be investigated in an attempt to learn from our mistakes. If, during the course of an investigation, the above is discovered, then transgressors should be prosecuted to the fullest.
It appears to me there is a radical difference between most of the folks on here and at least me with regard to trust of leadership, the military system, and government. It seems you have a near complete lack of trust in your fellow military, leaders, processes, & government. The way I view it is kinda the way old Ronnie Reagan viewed the Ruskies - 'Trust but verify' - I operate on the assumption of good faith and innocence until given a good reason not to, evaluate what evidence I can, concede I don't know all the facts, & decide if I'm happy - it's a purely personal decision. FWIW, a bereaved family member not happy with an investigation isn't a good reason to give up on a process, organisation, or my fellow military officers who happen to be investigators.
I do not believe the investigators always get it right, but I do believe they take their assignments very seriously, use subject matter experts to verify everything they can, and normally reach reasonable conclusions.
One more rant - The word 'closure' as applied to bereaved family members is a very modern concept and is grossly misused much of the time (IMO). It is an objective term applied to a subjective situation and designed to invoke an emotional response - either positive or negative. As any psychiatrist worth his salt will tell you, grief is a process that often has no end for an individual and there is never an instant where you wake up one day & say, "By golly, I've got all my answers & I can move on now because I have 'closure' since all my questions & concerns have been answered."
Returned from det today - yes, quite the short one, but with sh*te hours - 'tis what we get paid for though.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coroner Won't Show Iraq Video
US Herk, look away the coroner has used the word closure.
Surely the point about closure is that the family cannot continue the normal grieving process until these inquests are complete? 4 long years the Govt have made the families wait, only resourcing the coroner's office satisfactorily a few months ago. Disagree with your idea about Inquests affecting combat capability. Failing to be honest and failing to equip soldiers satisfactorily is what affects combat capability, because it wrecks recruitment and retention. Myself and the likes of Chug have a different perspective to the guys serving. We can see the damage being done by this kind of cover-up. Any small tactical or battlefield advantage that might be gained by keeping it secret is completely outweighed by the ensuing bad publicity once the cover-up becomes public knowledge. AKA Pat Tillman.
A coroner has reluctantly agreed to a US demand not to show a video of British soldier Matty Hull being killed in a friendly fire incident in open court.
Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he would take a "pragmatic" approach to showing the video, a cockpit recording of US pilots in A10 tank-buster planes opening fire on Lance Corporal Hull's armoured vehicle convoy in Southern Iraq four years ago, to ensure the US provided further information for his inquiry.
Addressing a pre-inquest hearing before the full inquest on March 12, he said: "I can say quite categorically that if it were not for the potential delay and distress this would cause the family, I would not be willing to be bound by an agreement with the US as to use of evidence that I consider crucial to this inquest.
"I would be wrong to accept that the US are correct in seeking to bind the hands of the coroners' court in this way but in these circumstances I feel that in order to make progress and provide the family with closure, it seems to me that I must act in this way as far as the copy of that video is concerned."
Mr Walker was told by Ministry of Defence lawyer Leigh-Ann Mulcahy that the American government has authorised the transcript of the video to be presented in open court. But the video, which is of poor quality and shows little of what is happening on the ground, cannot be shown in public. It will be brought to the court by an MoD official and shown to the coroner and the family. The coroner asked if he could get the video analysed or enhanced but was told he did not have US authorisation.
Geraldine McCool, respresenting Susan Hull, said: "My client's views are that the video is absolutely vital evidence for this inquest and there is an artificial situation in discussing these conditions when the video has been displayed and is available around the world. I would say there is a lack of co-operation on behalf of the US government."
But she added that the Hull family would rather that the coroner co-operated with the US over the video to ensure the US provides a witness to interpret it and transcripts of the US investigation into the pilots' training hours.
Transcripts of interviews with the pilots already read to the coroner's court show the two pilots had no conflict experience.
The coroner repeatedly spoke of his frustration at the slow progress and obstacles put in his path. "It seems to me that this inquest creeps forward step by step. Each time I hear something new, I have to approach the MoD to seek clarification about that point," he said.
"The time has come where I should be entitled to see all the material and form a judgment on what I have seen. I'm not unreasonable, I shall be fair but this investigation needs to be thorough. I just want to know, and I'm sure the family want to know, why this happened, in as much detail as possible."
Surely the point about closure is that the family cannot continue the normal grieving process until these inquests are complete? 4 long years the Govt have made the families wait, only resourcing the coroner's office satisfactorily a few months ago. Disagree with your idea about Inquests affecting combat capability. Failing to be honest and failing to equip soldiers satisfactorily is what affects combat capability, because it wrecks recruitment and retention. Myself and the likes of Chug have a different perspective to the guys serving. We can see the damage being done by this kind of cover-up. Any small tactical or battlefield advantage that might be gained by keeping it secret is completely outweighed by the ensuing bad publicity once the cover-up becomes public knowledge. AKA Pat Tillman.
A coroner has reluctantly agreed to a US demand not to show a video of British soldier Matty Hull being killed in a friendly fire incident in open court.
Oxfordshire Assistant Deputy Coroner Andrew Walker said he would take a "pragmatic" approach to showing the video, a cockpit recording of US pilots in A10 tank-buster planes opening fire on Lance Corporal Hull's armoured vehicle convoy in Southern Iraq four years ago, to ensure the US provided further information for his inquiry.
Addressing a pre-inquest hearing before the full inquest on March 12, he said: "I can say quite categorically that if it were not for the potential delay and distress this would cause the family, I would not be willing to be bound by an agreement with the US as to use of evidence that I consider crucial to this inquest.
"I would be wrong to accept that the US are correct in seeking to bind the hands of the coroners' court in this way but in these circumstances I feel that in order to make progress and provide the family with closure, it seems to me that I must act in this way as far as the copy of that video is concerned."
Mr Walker was told by Ministry of Defence lawyer Leigh-Ann Mulcahy that the American government has authorised the transcript of the video to be presented in open court. But the video, which is of poor quality and shows little of what is happening on the ground, cannot be shown in public. It will be brought to the court by an MoD official and shown to the coroner and the family. The coroner asked if he could get the video analysed or enhanced but was told he did not have US authorisation.
Geraldine McCool, respresenting Susan Hull, said: "My client's views are that the video is absolutely vital evidence for this inquest and there is an artificial situation in discussing these conditions when the video has been displayed and is available around the world. I would say there is a lack of co-operation on behalf of the US government."
But she added that the Hull family would rather that the coroner co-operated with the US over the video to ensure the US provides a witness to interpret it and transcripts of the US investigation into the pilots' training hours.
Transcripts of interviews with the pilots already read to the coroner's court show the two pilots had no conflict experience.
The coroner repeatedly spoke of his frustration at the slow progress and obstacles put in his path. "It seems to me that this inquest creeps forward step by step. Each time I hear something new, I have to approach the MoD to seek clarification about that point," he said.
"The time has come where I should be entitled to see all the material and form a judgment on what I have seen. I'm not unreasonable, I shall be fair but this investigation needs to be thorough. I just want to know, and I'm sure the family want to know, why this happened, in as much detail as possible."
Last edited by nigegilb; 16th Feb 2007 at 12:15.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nige - loads of respect for you, what you're doing, & your views, but I think we'll agree to disagree.
The coroner did not use the word closure in any new way - same way - emotive statements to solicit a given reaction - it obviously has worked.
In my mind, the coroner is at least contributory to the slowing of the grieving process. If there were no coroner's inquest, the family would have "moved on" by now - instead, they are faced with a public servant who appears to have widespread power, but is impotent to really cut through any red tape put in his path (either intentionally or due to standard bureaucracy), continually delaying any of his findings...combat deaths are just that, combat deaths.
The fact someone illegally leaked the vid does not mean the US should now just roll over & provide a more detailed or enhanced copy of it, nor should they just release it to the public in any official capacity. The reason is quite simple - precedent. If it is officially released here, then the next time there will be a hue & cry to release the next one - further damaging our investigative process & ultimately combat capability. This is not a cover-up, nor is it obstruction - in fact, I think the US is doing much more than it would with one of our citizens...
You are 100% correct that failing to be honest & failing to equip soldiers satisfactorily most definitely degrades combat capability. Do not let your passion for these very worthy causes cloud your perspective & think there is nothing else that degrades combat capability - it's not a one or the other situation & is likely cumulative.
Many have obviously lost faith in (pick your individual/organisation) so they decide the investigative process must surely be corrupt from the beginning & are eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater - I cannot disagree with this premise strongly enough. Preserving the integrity of the investigative process is paramount IMO. It is only through these processes that we can hopefully prevent these accidents in future. Politically influenced & emotionally charged public inquests cannot do anything other than point fingers, re-open raw wounds, & yes, IMO, degrade combat capability.
EDIT - I initially joined this discussion out of concern over the allegations of a US cover-up and attempted to clarify the normally very thorough investigative process we typicalyl conduct into nearly all significant incidents. What I have seen is an attitude of, "Yes, yes, that's all well & good, but we still want blood - look at the poor widow." It seems to this outside observer that this widow is nothing more than a tool to be used against the government - another indictment of the shoddy handling of a very unpopular conflict run by an unpopular (at least with the military) government and all that goes with it. I have no doubt many are very sincere in their concern for the widow in this case, perhaps even all are, but she most definitely is being used as a political pawn. I hope you can see that.
The coroner did not use the word closure in any new way - same way - emotive statements to solicit a given reaction - it obviously has worked.
In my mind, the coroner is at least contributory to the slowing of the grieving process. If there were no coroner's inquest, the family would have "moved on" by now - instead, they are faced with a public servant who appears to have widespread power, but is impotent to really cut through any red tape put in his path (either intentionally or due to standard bureaucracy), continually delaying any of his findings...combat deaths are just that, combat deaths.
The fact someone illegally leaked the vid does not mean the US should now just roll over & provide a more detailed or enhanced copy of it, nor should they just release it to the public in any official capacity. The reason is quite simple - precedent. If it is officially released here, then the next time there will be a hue & cry to release the next one - further damaging our investigative process & ultimately combat capability. This is not a cover-up, nor is it obstruction - in fact, I think the US is doing much more than it would with one of our citizens...
You are 100% correct that failing to be honest & failing to equip soldiers satisfactorily most definitely degrades combat capability. Do not let your passion for these very worthy causes cloud your perspective & think there is nothing else that degrades combat capability - it's not a one or the other situation & is likely cumulative.
Many have obviously lost faith in (pick your individual/organisation) so they decide the investigative process must surely be corrupt from the beginning & are eager to throw the baby out with the bathwater - I cannot disagree with this premise strongly enough. Preserving the integrity of the investigative process is paramount IMO. It is only through these processes that we can hopefully prevent these accidents in future. Politically influenced & emotionally charged public inquests cannot do anything other than point fingers, re-open raw wounds, & yes, IMO, degrade combat capability.
EDIT - I initially joined this discussion out of concern over the allegations of a US cover-up and attempted to clarify the normally very thorough investigative process we typicalyl conduct into nearly all significant incidents. What I have seen is an attitude of, "Yes, yes, that's all well & good, but we still want blood - look at the poor widow." It seems to this outside observer that this widow is nothing more than a tool to be used against the government - another indictment of the shoddy handling of a very unpopular conflict run by an unpopular (at least with the military) government and all that goes with it. I have no doubt many are very sincere in their concern for the widow in this case, perhaps even all are, but she most definitely is being used as a political pawn. I hope you can see that.
Last edited by US Herk; 16th Feb 2007 at 13:56.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Happily agree to disagree, I too respect where you are in all this.
Maybe one answer is to not have any form of public inquiry in these very sensitive cases, but to offer instead, considerable compensation to the families concerned?
Just wonder what you think about that.
Is it true that the widow's pension in the US is very generous?
Maybe one answer is to not have any form of public inquiry in these very sensitive cases, but to offer instead, considerable compensation to the families concerned?
Just wonder what you think about that.
Is it true that the widow's pension in the US is very generous?
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
Maybe one answer is to not have any form of public inquiry in these very sensitive cases, but to offer instead, considerable compensation to the families concerned?
As for compensation, I personally believe families of soldiers who've died doing their country's will should be well taken care of - more than just monetarily.
Originally Posted by nigegilb
Is it true that the widow's pension in the US is very generous?
The Serviceman's Group Life Insurance is automatic (we pay for it, but it is nearly insignificant) & to get anything less, you have to request lesser coverage in writing, sign paperwork stating you're aware of what you're doing, etc.
I believe SGLI is currently $400,000 - there are other benefits paid to surviving family, but they vary with circumstances. SGLI premiums are about $0.065/$1000.00 coverage, so that $400,000 is about $26/mo.
NOTE: I edited my response above this one heavily since your response.
Last edited by US Herk; 16th Feb 2007 at 17:57.
Guest
Posts: n/a
In addition to the voluntary SGLI coverage (and private insurance if you wish, but most of those carry a "except for war" clause), Congress also raised the death gratuity from $12,000 to $100,000 within the last year or so. Believe it went retroactive to those killed since 9/11.
Tough way to earn a buck, however.
Tough way to earn a buck, however.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nigegilb
I take it that a pension is paid on top of this commensurate with rank?
However, if a person can be medically retired from the military prior to dying, this is much more beneficial to the survivors from a compensatory perspective. A disability pension is paid to the servicemember or his heirs if medically retired. I have heard rumour (please do not ask for specifics) of personnel not being pronounced dead until the paperwork for medical retirement could be processed as a way to help the families. The exact timings surrounding a pronouncement of death & medical retirement determinations fall in some gray areas...
At the risk of being repetitive; predictable, predicted and ignored.
Read the BOI reports. Then read the recommendations. Ask why, in many cases, the recommendations refer to issues not even mentioned in the body of the report.
For example, Tornado / Patriot. The (UK) inquiry points the finger at Patriot procedures and infers an IFF failure. But C-in-C RAFSC, when reviewing the report, recommends IFF failure warnings be integrated into the cockpit. Clearly, he is unhappy that the BOI has not reported on this aspect.
Bear in mind that his noting this failure to integrate and make safe was not a revelation. It is merely a reiteration of previous recommendations, which were rejected. In fact, a formal complaint was submitted covering this subject, also rejected. (Info provided under FOI). That is, it was well known that IFF systems were routinely delivered unfit for purpose which, in my opinion, is a breach of the airworthiness rules and duty of care obligation. I know Boscombe agree. Furthermore, the report does not mention if the integration rigs, simulator and equipment build standards were compatible. Again, this has been ruled unnecessary, which is clearly barking.
A general point. No project manager or officer responsible for airworthiness should have to stand in an open office and argue with a superior, who does not have that responsibility, that he should be allowed to make his aircraft airworthy and exercise his duty of care. But they do, so it is always wise to place the event on record, so there is something to ask for under FOI. MoD, if you don't want to be caught out, your new found openness must be matched with honesty, integrity, competence and funding.
Read the BOI reports. Then read the recommendations. Ask why, in many cases, the recommendations refer to issues not even mentioned in the body of the report.
For example, Tornado / Patriot. The (UK) inquiry points the finger at Patriot procedures and infers an IFF failure. But C-in-C RAFSC, when reviewing the report, recommends IFF failure warnings be integrated into the cockpit. Clearly, he is unhappy that the BOI has not reported on this aspect.
Bear in mind that his noting this failure to integrate and make safe was not a revelation. It is merely a reiteration of previous recommendations, which were rejected. In fact, a formal complaint was submitted covering this subject, also rejected. (Info provided under FOI). That is, it was well known that IFF systems were routinely delivered unfit for purpose which, in my opinion, is a breach of the airworthiness rules and duty of care obligation. I know Boscombe agree. Furthermore, the report does not mention if the integration rigs, simulator and equipment build standards were compatible. Again, this has been ruled unnecessary, which is clearly barking.
A general point. No project manager or officer responsible for airworthiness should have to stand in an open office and argue with a superior, who does not have that responsibility, that he should be allowed to make his aircraft airworthy and exercise his duty of care. But they do, so it is always wise to place the event on record, so there is something to ask for under FOI. MoD, if you don't want to be caught out, your new found openness must be matched with honesty, integrity, competence and funding.
Once again the Oxford Coroner has asked for evidence from the US government, in this case some missing eleven lines from the Investigation Board Report. Once again he has been turned down. The court has been told that "Manila Hotel" (the FAC) was "gobsmacked" that the A-10 had made an attack without his sanction, on a target that turned out to be LCploH Hull and his comrades. It would seem that blue on blue, as well as costing friendly lives, is increasingly incurring a political cost. Perhaps that alone might lead to the attention required to ensure that this "no brainer" issue is dealt with effectively by proper equipment, joint training, operational procedures, and jointly agreed ROEs.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard on the radio that the widow, through her lawyer, has appealed to President Bush for full information on how her husband died. She knows already that he died on active service in face of the enemy. She knows that he died as the result of a tragic mis-identification, by a US pilot, of his vehicle as a hostile rocket launcher. She knows that the US pilot was distraught when he discovered the result of his error. What more could she reasonably want to know to achieve "closure" - whatever that is? (In most cases the grieving process lasts for many years, if not a lifetime).
To me there is a nasty smell of "no win no fee" representation. Her lawyer is trying to squeeze compensation out of the US Government, I think. What a precedent that would create if the boot were on the other foot!
To me there is a nasty smell of "no win no fee" representation. Her lawyer is trying to squeeze compensation out of the US Government, I think. What a precedent that would create if the boot were on the other foot!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Maybe you are not aware of the aims of an inquest. The Coroner's remit is to find out exactly why a death has occurred, to seek the truth. If there are facts that are being witheld why shouldn't they be requested if it would help the Coroner with his task? Bush offered her any assistance when he met her, she is now asking for that assistance. She has been made to wait 4 years by this Govt for this Inquest.. Do you know if her lawyer is being paid? Some lawers do not take payment. I spent a day with one the other week. He was not charging for his time. There are people of priinciple out there. Not everyone is motivated by money you know.
Edited after PM
Edited after PM
Last edited by nigegilb; 15th Mar 2007 at 21:40.
Flatus Veteranus wrote:
What a precedent indeed FV, it might even lead to the most extreme action having to be taken, you know, like proper procedures and equipment, or full and effective joint training and ROEs. A bizarre concept of course, but we live in bizarre times! I have read some hard nosed posts on this forum, but yours is right up there in the lead. I don't know if you have been bereaved in circumstances similar to Mrs Hull, I would hope not, but she comes across to me as both dignified and reserved, like, well, a grieving widow. She has been treated with dismissive arrogance by the MOD for four years. Her husband went to war to close with and destroy the enemy. Instead he was destroyed by his own side. Even if Mrs Hull didn't wish to know why, many others do, including myself. We can't have a situation where such tragedies are swept under the carpet as being too embarrassing. Just as in Flight Safety, the overwhelming motive must be to avoid a repetition as far as is possible. If real reform of CAS SOPs had been instituted, that would have leaked out by now. And how would you know that the US government would be defendant in any case? For all we know the fault lay with the British CoC. We just don't know, and that's the point. If there were real Opsec considerations here, well fair enough, but far more likely is the closing of ranks to suppress a complete c***-up. If Flight Safety, both RAF and civilian, was run on that basis, I strongly suspect that I, for one, wouldn't be around today!
What more could she reasonably want to know to achieve "closure" - whatever that is? (In most cases the grieving process lasts for many years, if not a lifetime).
To me there is a nasty smell of "no win no fee" representation. Her lawyer is trying to squeeze compensation out of the US Government, I think. What a precedent that would create if the boot were on the other foot!
To me there is a nasty smell of "no win no fee" representation. Her lawyer is trying to squeeze compensation out of the US Government, I think. What a precedent that would create if the boot were on the other foot!
Last edited by Chugalug2; 15th Mar 2007 at 22:41. Reason: words, dear boy, words!
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Behind the picket fence
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flatus Veteranus
I heard on the radio that the widow, through her lawyer, has appealed to President Bush for full information on how her husband died. She knows already that he died on active service in face of the enemy. She knows that he died as the result of a tragic mis-identification, by a US pilot, of his vehicle as a hostile rocket launcher. She knows that the US pilot was distraught when he discovered the result of his error. What more could she reasonably want to know to achieve "closure" - whatever that is? (In most cases the grieving process lasts for many years, if not a lifetime).
To me there is a nasty smell of "no win no fee" representation. Her lawyer is trying to squeeze compensation out of the US Government, I think. What a precedent that would create if the boot were on the other foot!
To me there is a nasty smell of "no win no fee" representation. Her lawyer is trying to squeeze compensation out of the US Government, I think. What a precedent that would create if the boot were on the other foot!
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm
"The death of British soldier after a US fighter pilot opened fire on his convoy in Iraq was "entirely avoidable", a coroner has said.....Andrew Walker [the coroner] said: "I believe that the full facts have not yet come to light.""
"The death of British soldier after a US fighter pilot opened fire on his convoy in Iraq was "entirely avoidable", a coroner has said.....Andrew Walker [the coroner] said: "I believe that the full facts have not yet come to light.""
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, Matty Hull's widow with great dignity states that the verdict of unlawful killing draws a line under this whole thing. Would you kindly withdraw your disgraceful post now FV?
Agree whole-heartedly.
FV, your post was an insult to a brave man who died for his country and to a widow who has carried herself with dignity throughout this shameful episode.
FV, your post was an insult to a brave man who died for his country and to a widow who has carried herself with dignity throughout this shameful episode.
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I now expect this country to do everything it can to bring the killers to justice using that wonderful Anglo American extradition treaty which has so far been one way traffic. If not then my MP Shona Mcisaacs (yes another Scottish MP sitting in an English seat) might well have to find alternative employment in a couple of years time.. and she knows it!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sadly, you lot have confirmed my suspicions - heads on sticks. This widow is being used for political purposes to underscore an unpopular war waged by an unpopular leader. Her grief is being drawn out for purely political motives.
Unlawful killing - sounds a lot like murder, but murder requires intent. Is there any kind of "lawful" killing?? Other than combat, I mean. In combat, it's OK to kill people - it's your job. So when a tragic accident occurs, we then hypocritcally state that killing what you truly believed to be the enemy is now unlawful as it turns out it wasn't the enemy at all.
This is precisely the lunacy that makes the poor 18 year old at the front gate of the camp, carrying his "trusty" SA-80 (which he's probably never actually shot) know that if he tries to use deadly force to prevent unauthorized entry - even by terrorists - he will go to jail for "unlawful" killing or "excessive" force...
Nothing in my tirade takes anything away from the widow or her sacrifice. Combat isn't exactly a safe area to be in. People actually die. Sadly, it occasionally occurs at our own hands - never intentional, often preventable (with 20/20 hindsight), but should never be pursued in a criminal manner.
That's the true disgrace.
Unlawful killing - sounds a lot like murder, but murder requires intent. Is there any kind of "lawful" killing?? Other than combat, I mean. In combat, it's OK to kill people - it's your job. So when a tragic accident occurs, we then hypocritcally state that killing what you truly believed to be the enemy is now unlawful as it turns out it wasn't the enemy at all.
This is precisely the lunacy that makes the poor 18 year old at the front gate of the camp, carrying his "trusty" SA-80 (which he's probably never actually shot) know that if he tries to use deadly force to prevent unauthorized entry - even by terrorists - he will go to jail for "unlawful" killing or "excessive" force...
Nothing in my tirade takes anything away from the widow or her sacrifice. Combat isn't exactly a safe area to be in. People actually die. Sadly, it occasionally occurs at our own hands - never intentional, often preventable (with 20/20 hindsight), but should never be pursued in a criminal manner.
That's the true disgrace.