Blue on Blue.
More bang for your buck
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: land of the clanger
Age: 82
Posts: 3,512
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Isn't it amazing how contrite the MOD can appear when it realises that it's attempts to mount a cover up have been found out and the facts are made public 
US Herk
“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”.
I suspect you have not had the privilege of watching and listening to Mrs Hull facing the worlds press after today’s verdict. A privilege. She is clearly not being used. She is erudite, intelligent and very, very impressive. It is the MoD, our Department of Constitutional Affairs and the US Government who have drawn out her suffering – nobody else.
When asked if the MoD had been helpful to her, she replied yes, they’d helped with her hotel and travel. A great put down. The mighty MoD reduced to the level of a hotel booking service. Beautifully delivered and dripping with contempt.
”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”.
I’d agree only if this tragic event, and others discussed earlier in the thread, had not been foreseen and ignored. Some more so than others but when the exact same thing happens in 1991 and nothing is done about it, then that is negligence and abrogation of Duty of Care. Coroner Walker says “Unlawful killing” but the “true disgrace” is that the people who allowed it to happen continue to prosper, both in MoD and politics. It is they, more than the pilots, who have been unlawful.
I wish Mrs Hull and her family all the best for the future. LCoH Hull would be very proud of her.
“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”.
I suspect you have not had the privilege of watching and listening to Mrs Hull facing the worlds press after today’s verdict. A privilege. She is clearly not being used. She is erudite, intelligent and very, very impressive. It is the MoD, our Department of Constitutional Affairs and the US Government who have drawn out her suffering – nobody else.
When asked if the MoD had been helpful to her, she replied yes, they’d helped with her hotel and travel. A great put down. The mighty MoD reduced to the level of a hotel booking service. Beautifully delivered and dripping with contempt.
”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”.
I’d agree only if this tragic event, and others discussed earlier in the thread, had not been foreseen and ignored. Some more so than others but when the exact same thing happens in 1991 and nothing is done about it, then that is negligence and abrogation of Duty of Care. Coroner Walker says “Unlawful killing” but the “true disgrace” is that the people who allowed it to happen continue to prosper, both in MoD and politics. It is they, more than the pilots, who have been unlawful.
I wish Mrs Hull and her family all the best for the future. LCoH Hull would be very proud of her.
US Herc wrote:
And whose heads would they be? It is not the business of the coroner to point an accusational finger at anyone, that would be for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS), or Mrs Hull herself if she wished to proceed with a private prosecution. She has stated that she is content now that she has been told that her husband's death was avoidable and unlawful. I very much doubt if the CPS will take any action either ("not in the public interest"). You, and others on this thread, have missed the point entirely. Mrs Hull knew that she was being lied to, and that there had been a complete "Snow Job" done on her. She would not be fobbed off, but it has taken four years for her to prove her point. How dare you suggest that she has been used, on the contrary she has refused to be used, and shown herself to be strong and determined in her grief. As Tuc says, CploH Hull would be proud of her, I know I am. The lessons that should be learned from this, and all the other blue on blue tragedies, must be learned and implemented. If we owe nothing else to this brave lady, we owe her that.
Sadly, you lot have confirmed my suspicions - heads on sticks
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: England
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unlawful killing is a Coroner's Verdict - he cannot say it was Accidental Death because it wasn't. He is not a Judge but a Coroner whose job is to investigate an unexpected death of a healthy individual and to ascertain cause of death before a Death Certificate may be issued. It is a very ancient system under English Common Law and predates any of the British Armed Forces and Britain itself and even a united England.
Had the American side been more forthcoming it could have been resolved ages ago, but now it never will be.
Pat Tillman's parents were lied to, the uniform and body armour were destroyed so no evidence survived, and stories were fabricated which when exposed made the Rangers look a shabby unit with a mendacious military command.
Why the evasive behaviour ? It is so shabby.
These pilots either made a mistake or were incompetent or both. If their actions are the highest standards of the USAF then we have been warned. If they followed USAF procedures to the letter we know they need changing. If they did not follow procedures the USAF has some serious problems.
The fact is that in 1956 John Foster Dulles shafted Britain at Suez and as a consequence Britain did not get involved in significant overseas military interventions again until The Falklands in 1982....Blair stupidly jumped into a war situation for which Britain was simply not equipped - the exercises in Oman showed that.....he should not have committed resources he could not equip.
Having taken that risk he now has unleashed public anger that so much has gone wrong through sheer incompetence. It is a bit amateurish. If orange panels don't do it how about having British soldiers wear red uniforms as at Yorktown to help pilots recognise them........or how about equipping British vehicles and Tornados with rockets to retaliate in friendly-fire incidents ?
Had the American side been more forthcoming it could have been resolved ages ago, but now it never will be.
Pat Tillman's parents were lied to, the uniform and body armour were destroyed so no evidence survived, and stories were fabricated which when exposed made the Rangers look a shabby unit with a mendacious military command.
Why the evasive behaviour ? It is so shabby.
These pilots either made a mistake or were incompetent or both. If their actions are the highest standards of the USAF then we have been warned. If they followed USAF procedures to the letter we know they need changing. If they did not follow procedures the USAF has some serious problems.
The fact is that in 1956 John Foster Dulles shafted Britain at Suez and as a consequence Britain did not get involved in significant overseas military interventions again until The Falklands in 1982....Blair stupidly jumped into a war situation for which Britain was simply not equipped - the exercises in Oman showed that.....he should not have committed resources he could not equip.
Having taken that risk he now has unleashed public anger that so much has gone wrong through sheer incompetence. It is a bit amateurish. If orange panels don't do it how about having British soldiers wear red uniforms as at Yorktown to help pilots recognise them........or how about equipping British vehicles and Tornados with rockets to retaliate in friendly-fire incidents ?
"Do British fighting vehicles not have some form of IFF?"
That would require funding. UK Governments don't do funding. And senior officers don't like asking as it's career / gong limiting.
That would require funding. UK Governments don't do funding. And senior officers don't like asking as it's career / gong limiting.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Coroner's words;
The coroner said the act was a "criminal one, since the pilots broke with the combat rules of engagement in failing to properly identify the vehicles and seek clearance before opening fire.
"The pilots chose not to take steps to confirm the identity of the vehicles in the convoy - that he could easily have taken," he said.
"The pilot who opened fire did so with disregard for the rules of engagement and acting outside the protection of the law of armed conflict.
"I'm satisfied, having given careful consideration to all the evidence that I have heard in this inquest, that this is a case where I can properly consider whether an unlawful action and manslaughter applies here.
"I find there was no lawful authority to fire on the convoy. The attack on the convoy therefore amounted to an assault. It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal.
"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake. The pilot chose to interpret the orange panels (placed on coalition vehicles to identify them as friendly) as rockets without taking steps to identify the vehicles as friendly."
The coroner said the act was a "criminal one, since the pilots broke with the combat rules of engagement in failing to properly identify the vehicles and seek clearance before opening fire.
"The pilots chose not to take steps to confirm the identity of the vehicles in the convoy - that he could easily have taken," he said.
"The pilot who opened fire did so with disregard for the rules of engagement and acting outside the protection of the law of armed conflict.
"I'm satisfied, having given careful consideration to all the evidence that I have heard in this inquest, that this is a case where I can properly consider whether an unlawful action and manslaughter applies here.
"I find there was no lawful authority to fire on the convoy. The attack on the convoy therefore amounted to an assault. It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal.
"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake. The pilot chose to interpret the orange panels (placed on coalition vehicles to identify them as friendly) as rockets without taking steps to identify the vehicles as friendly."
Guest
Posts: n/a
"I find there was no lawful authority to fire on the convoy. The attack on the convoy therefore amounted to an assault. It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal.
"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake. The pilot chose to interpret the orange panels (placed on coalition vehicles to identify them as friendly) as rockets without taking steps to identify the vehicles as friendly."
"I don't think this was a case of honest mistake. The pilot chose to interpret the orange panels (placed on coalition vehicles to identify them as friendly) as rockets without taking steps to identify the vehicles as friendly."
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: NZ
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Are "Friendly Fire" incidents inevitable in war?
A CNN poll (in which 128611 people have voted) suggests that of those voting 90% (115568 votes) beleived that Blue on Blue is inevitable, whereas only 10% (13043 votes) beleive its not. I'm inclined to agree with the poll - accidents will continue to happen. What is important is that as with Flight Safety, we learn from those accidents and take steps to prevent another occurance. Sadly, given the US DoDs apparent view that this was a random unfortunate accident and that sh!t happens, I suspect the only thing that will come out of this is an increasing lack of faith amongst coalition forces of American professionalism, skill and their desire to stand shoulder to shoulder with their allies.
Now that we have paid tribute to Mrs Hull, and rightly castigated those who belittle her, let us also celebrate Mr Andrew Walker. How strange that an ancient and arcane office, that of Coroner, should succeed when the 21st Century, state of the art, joined up government of Bliar has so singularly failed, and shown to be both contemptuous and duplicitous towards such a remarkable lady. Or perhaps how typical. As he and his grisly gang set about the reduction of our remaining institutions, including the armed services, to utter impotence by "modernising" them into the servile servants of the "peoples" PM, we have been privileged to see the old system in full working order and pointing a finger at him and his clique. Not for much longer of course, such independence cannot be tolerated. Mr Walker's services will be dispensed with come June, and future "military" inquests dispersed around the country to other (more pliable?) coroners. The historical raison d'etre of this independent system could not have been more dramatically illustrated. Our forefathers knew which side was up, and cared about it. We don't it would seem. Well done Mr Walker. I don't know if you ever served, but these past months you have served your country and its service people well!
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Chug, very wise words. I have already spent some time with the Wilts Coroner. These men seem to be cut from the same cloth. The Wilts Coroner has promised a frank and fearless investigation into the downing of XV179, of that I am absolutely sure.
I wonder why Andrew Walker is being dismissed, the deaths continue unabated, does anyone have any faith left in this Govt or this MoD?
I wonder why Andrew Walker is being dismissed, the deaths continue unabated, does anyone have any faith left in this Govt or this MoD?
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Having not read much of this lengthy thread, I hope I'm not repeating other posts. However...
I do find it incredible that the DoD find this incident apparently so agreeably accidental. It should be a wake-up call to them to sort out the obviously massive issues surrounding their target identification procedures and possibly ROE. Having watched the tape a couple of times, I am astonished at the lack of any formal investigate procedure by the pilots concerned. Yes, they are busy people, but surely more than a cursory examination of the potential target is required? What do you RAF boys do? Certainly in the Navy there is a formal drill requiring input from several positions in the Ops Room to establish to the highest practical degree whether a target can be engaged or otherwise. Yes, before anyone starts, I know its different in the air. However, there was clear doubt in the pilots minds. And if there wasn't, there certainly bloody well should have been. Were they asleep when they were briefed about the orange tarpaulins?
This isn't yank-bashing for those that think it is. The pilots concerned were negligent and incompetent. They should be either bought here and prosecuted, or dealt with properly in the USA at Courts Martial. Examination of the shambles that led to the USS Vincennes shooting down and airliner shows that there are clear (and very easily solveable) problems in the US approach to positive identification of hostiles. I'm not saying we're perfect, but in terms of Blue-On-Blue, the US are far from it.
I am absolutely disgusted that after the (admittedly foolhardy) support that we gave to the US over the Iraq potmess, that they cannot see to it that these cowboys are adequately dealt with. Their current stance is a massive f*** you for all concerned.
I do find it incredible that the DoD find this incident apparently so agreeably accidental. It should be a wake-up call to them to sort out the obviously massive issues surrounding their target identification procedures and possibly ROE. Having watched the tape a couple of times, I am astonished at the lack of any formal investigate procedure by the pilots concerned. Yes, they are busy people, but surely more than a cursory examination of the potential target is required? What do you RAF boys do? Certainly in the Navy there is a formal drill requiring input from several positions in the Ops Room to establish to the highest practical degree whether a target can be engaged or otherwise. Yes, before anyone starts, I know its different in the air. However, there was clear doubt in the pilots minds. And if there wasn't, there certainly bloody well should have been. Were they asleep when they were briefed about the orange tarpaulins?
This isn't yank-bashing for those that think it is. The pilots concerned were negligent and incompetent. They should be either bought here and prosecuted, or dealt with properly in the USA at Courts Martial. Examination of the shambles that led to the USS Vincennes shooting down and airliner shows that there are clear (and very easily solveable) problems in the US approach to positive identification of hostiles. I'm not saying we're perfect, but in terms of Blue-On-Blue, the US are far from it.
I am absolutely disgusted that after the (admittedly foolhardy) support that we gave to the US over the Iraq potmess, that they cannot see to it that these cowboys are adequately dealt with. Their current stance is a massive f*** you for all concerned.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Behind the picket fence
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rather sobering images of the aftermath of this tragic event:
http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2007060982,00.jpg
http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2007060981,00.jpg
Let us pray this will be the last incident of its kind and that lessons will be learned.
http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2007060982,00.jpg
http://images.thesun.co.uk/picture/0,,2007060981,00.jpg
Let us pray this will be the last incident of its kind and that lessons will be learned.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NW FL
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe the Coroner had full access to the exact ROE in place for that mission. Therefore, with that as his baseline, any conclusions reached are done so with only partial information and therefore, suspect at best. This is the part called "reasonable doubt" that we, as civilised countries, provide to those accused of crimes.
Why are you not screaming for better IFF, better battlefield ID, better anything? This has been about nothing more than finding another angle to criticise your government, your leader, & the unpopular war...apart from the few that just want to see the pilots swing.
I'm sorry, the widow is being used.
No good can come of a witch hunt - you tend to lose all objectivity.
Why are you not screaming for better IFF, better battlefield ID, better anything? This has been about nothing more than finding another angle to criticise your government, your leader, & the unpopular war...apart from the few that just want to see the pilots swing.
I'm sorry, the widow is being used.
No good can come of a witch hunt - you tend to lose all objectivity.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: wilts
Posts: 1,667
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Herk you have just made an excellent case for full and open cooperation to be made fron the US Govt. Pity it chose not to eh? I, too, am disappointed that the Cororoner did not criticise lack of IFF amongst other things. The Coroner stated that not all facts were made available. Surely now, the US should change policy, this has been a disaster in many ways, and is causing waves of anger over here. Not your best day as a Nation, friend.
Well stated, nigegilb.
The culture of "Shoot first, ask questions later" has got to change. No matter which nation you're talking about.
The culture of "Shoot first, ask questions later" has got to change. No matter which nation you're talking about.
US Herk wrote:
You are quite right, he didn't. He said he didn't. He begged the US government for them. He was refused. The UK government said that it didn't have them either. As the coroner observed that is a shocking admission. So it would seem LCploH Hull and his comrades were also unaware of them. Are our troops still unaware of your ROEs when fighting along side of you, or is someone lying?
Will you please stop your mantra of "the widow is being used". It is insulting to her, to those who are posting here, to the coroner, to this nation!
The witch in this case is now the US government. Your country still has great respect in this country because of our shared historical endeavours, and is given a lot of rope. Your government has managed to hang itself with that rope over this case. The contemptuous way that proper process in the UK has been treated by our closest ally has concentrated minds wonderfully here. There will be repercussions I think.
I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe the Coroner had full access to the exact ROE in place for that mission....
I'm sorry, the widow is being used.
No good can come of a witch hunt - you tend to lose all objectivity
I'm sorry, the widow is being used.
No good can come of a witch hunt - you tend to lose all objectivity
Will you please stop your mantra of "the widow is being used". It is insulting to her, to those who are posting here, to the coroner, to this nation!
The witch in this case is now the US government. Your country still has great respect in this country because of our shared historical endeavours, and is given a lot of rope. Your government has managed to hang itself with that rope over this case. The contemptuous way that proper process in the UK has been treated by our closest ally has concentrated minds wonderfully here. There will be repercussions I think.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: FL410
Posts: 383
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
US Herk - "I'm sorry, the widow is being used".
You are either here to play devil's advocate, or you have been irretrievably brain-washed.
The Coroner should have had access to the ROE in force, you're right. However the US Govt denied him that. In the absence of it, it is nonetheless very clear from cockpit video that the pilots knew full well that they had grossly violated the profile, whatever it was. They engaged a friendly target, displaying the correct identification symbol. No ROE profile in history has authorised that, or ever will.
What is wrong with you people??
You are either here to play devil's advocate, or you have been irretrievably brain-washed.
The Coroner should have had access to the ROE in force, you're right. However the US Govt denied him that. In the absence of it, it is nonetheless very clear from cockpit video that the pilots knew full well that they had grossly violated the profile, whatever it was. They engaged a friendly target, displaying the correct identification symbol. No ROE profile in history has authorised that, or ever will.
What is wrong with you people??