Friendly fire death was criminal

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
What a suprise.....criminals...the lot of em....

"Friendly fire death was 'criminal'

http://uk.rd.yahoo.com/pa/SIG=113i5evue/**http://www.pa.press.net/ Friday March 16, 11:11 AM
[SIZE=-2]Click to enlarge photo[/SIZE]The friendly fire death of British soldier Matty Hull was unlawful and the result of a criminal attack, a coroner has ruled.
Oxfordshire assistant deputy coroner Andrew Walker criticised the US authorities for failing to co-operate with his investigation and said: "I believe that the full facts have not yet come to light."
He added: "The attack on the convoy amounted to an assault. It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal."
Lance Corporal Hull's widow Susan, who has fought a long battle to establish the truth about her husband's death, burst into tears as Mr Walker delivered his damning verdict.
The inquest, at Oxford's Old Assizes, had heard how the pilot of a US A-10 Tank-buster plane swooped and opened fire on the L/Cpl Hull's armed vehicle convoy in southern Iraq on March 28, 2003.
L/Cpl Hull died in the attack, which happened just three days before his 26th birthday. Four other British soldiers were injured. The British vehicles were clearly marked.
But they were targeted by two US jets who were patrolling the area in search of Iraqi forces. Mr Walker said: "I don't think this was a case of honest mistake. There is no evidence the pilots were acting in self-defence."
On Thursday Mrs Hull made a direct appeal to US president George Bush to help the coroner's inquiry by producing 11 censored lines of an interview between a ground controller and one of the pilots.
She said: "He assured me that he would do all he could to help. "President Bush, this is the last day you can help us. We ask that you give the coroner just one single page."
 

RomSpaceKnight

Council Member
Oct 30, 2006
1,384
23
38
61
London, Ont. Canada
A Canadian NCO has been charged with manslaughter in the death of a fellow soldier as a result of an accidental discharge. These guys are supposed to be pros. Contr l of your weapon or weapon systems at all times is crucial and criminal if you don't.
 

RomSpaceKnight

Council Member
Oct 30, 2006
1,384
23
38
61
London, Ont. Canada
The militay operates under an entirely different set of laws. Double jeopardy does not apply. You can still face the death penalty under military law. Summary trial is common. Trial by jury is rare.
 

EagleSmack

Hall of Fame Member
Feb 16, 2005
44,168
96
48
USA
It was an accident. Plain and simple.

Was there criminal intent?

Did the A-10 pilots know they were attacking British Soldiers? Of course not.

Since when in war are you only supposed to fire in self defense? It was not a peace keeping mission. It is war. if you can catch an enemy napping he is fair game.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
It was an accident. Plain and simple.

Was there criminal intent?

Did the A-10 pilots know they were attacking British Soldiers? Of course not.

Since when in war are you only supposed to fire in self defense? It was not a peace keeping mission. It is war. if you can catch an enemy napping he is fair game.

Yeah but you tend to share intellegence with your allies....especially those dying for YOUR cause. The US government went COMPLETLY the wrong way about it, not allowing for the evidence to be seen, jeez it had to be gained by a tabloid paper before the US would allow it.

I would like to know how many US servicemen have been killed by British FRIENDLY fire.

a hell of a lot less I bet....cheers guys, didnt we teach you?..the art of war is to have a bit of a think first err...orange stripes = allies doh.:banghead:
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Yeah but you tend to share intellegence with your allies....especially those dying for YOUR cause. The US government went COMPLETLY the wrong way about it, not allowing for the evidence to be seen, jeez it had to be gained by a tabloid paper before the US would allow it.

I would like to know how many US servicemen have been killed by British FRIENDLY fire.

a hell of a lot less I bet....cheers guys, didnt we teach you?..the art of war is to have a bit of a think first err...orange stripes = allies doh.:banghead:
Daz, you know I like you and all, but should we examine all the Canadian and Commonwealth Soldiesr used as cannon fodder, in say WWI(LWF) or WWII(LWF)? I'm pretty sure the number out ranks the US's frinedly fire totals. Not to mention one was purposefull, the other accidental.
 

earth_as_one

Time Out
Jan 5, 2006
7,933
53
48
The American military could have been more forthcoming, but the attack was an accident. The investigation shouldn't focus on civilian criminal liability, but identify what mistakes were made and how to avoid them in the future.

Since both of these incidents involved soldiers in a war zone, only military and international laws should apply.
 

Daz_Hockey

Council Member
Nov 21, 2005
1,927
7
38
Daz, you know I like you and all, but should we examine all the Canadian and Commonwealth Soldiesr used as cannon fodder, in say WWI(LWF) or WWII(LWF)? I'm pretty sure the number out ranks the US's frinedly fire totals. Not to mention one was purposefull, the other accidental.

And you know I agree with you on that point...BUT you also know that the British Empire considered (in world war one at least) the Canadian soldiers to be just another regiment in the British Empire forces, and therefore as expendible as the British mainland ones.

I've said before, I agree, the waste of human life was disgusting in that war (my great grandfather died there, as did many others of my family). But today is a different world, no-one was supposed to be using either as cannon fodder.

I can see where your coming from CDN, being a canadian of today, but then you know the Canadians were thought of as part of the same force as our own, and would have met with the same amount of completley disgusting slaughter.

I just think it's a bit different, but Ii do think it's perhaps entrenced with the idea that US soldiers (and they REALLY WERE just brought in as cannon fodder in WW1) are very gung ho and fire before thinking.
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
And you know I agree with you on that point...BUT you also know that the British Empire considered (in world war one at least) the Canadian soldiers to be just another regiment in the British Empire forces, and therefore as expendible as the British mainland ones.

I've said before, I agree, the waste of human life was disgusting in that war (my great grandfather died there, as did many others of my family). But today is a different world, no-one was supposed to be using either as cannon fodder.

I can see where your coming from CDN, being a canadian of today, but then you know the Canadians were thought of as part of the same force as our own, and would have met with the same amount of completley disgusting slaughter.

I just think it's a bit different, but Ii do think it's perhaps entrenced with the idea that US soldiers (and they REALLY WERE just brought in as cannon fodder in WW1) are very gung ho and fire before thinking.
I would ever so slightly agree with you there.