BBC: (US) 'Friendly fire' video unearthed

[Eugene]

Last Updated: Tuesday, 6 February 2007, 03:13 GMT

'Friendly fire' video unearthed

The Sun newspaper says it has obtained the cockpit video at the centre
of a row over the "friendly-fire" death of a British soldier in Iraq.

-snip-

The MoD said it was classified "secret" by the US, so could not be
released.

The Sun says the video shows US aircraft attacking a British convoy
in Basra, southern Iraq, in March 2003.

The paper has published a transcript of what it says was said by US
military personnel on the video and says it will release copies of the
video footage to other media organisations later.

-snip-

Full article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/6333853.stm

(The Sun)

Joy at direct hit turns to horror

By TOM NEWTON DUNN
Defence Editor
February 06, 2007

THE Sun today publishes the full, disturbing truth about how the US pilot
of an A-10 tankbuster jet broke all the rules to shoot up a British convoy
in the Iraq war.

-snip-

It shows how the pilots — reservists who had never been in action before —
made SIX crucial errors.

-snip-

A second burst of fire is unleashed 98 seconds after the first. Moments later
the pilots are told the truth over the radio.

As they take in the horror, POPOV35 says: “We’re in jail dude”. POPOV36
weeps as they return to base: “God dammit. F*** me dead.”

-snip-

Full article: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2007060133,00.html

Video link: http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,11021-10043,00.html

Related: Why won't the US tell us how Matty died? - The Observer

[bananas]

1. video alternate link, for those having trouble.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=135745&mesg_id=135787

[magellan]

2. kick for exposure

[Bluebear]

5. kick

[lonestarnot]

3. WTF! I know shit happens, but damn!

:shrug: Can't we get a fucking clue over there!

[magellan]

4. This happened in 2003

But sadly we know that the reckless cowboy mentality that compelled these pilots to fire on British troops isn't unique, and has cost countless innocent lives before and since then.

[lonestarnot]

7. Yes listened to the tape, posted and then read article. 2003.

But you know crap like this is still happening and being covered up. Maybe not an everyday occurrence, hell maybe it is, but disturbing is an understatement.

[Selatius]

6. These two pilots are, at the very least, guilty of criminal negligence.

I hope they go to trial for their cavalier disregard for the rules of war.

[magellan]

8. Part of the mystery is no one knows what charges, if any, were brought

...against them in a US military inquiry, or the results. At least that's what I've gathered. Also, The Sun describes the pilots as reservists with no prior combat experience.

Reckless effin' cowboys creating imaginary enemies to destroy, just like Bush**.

[malaise]

9. I have to disagree

reservists who had never been in action before —
made SIX crucial errors.

Rumsfeld, Bush and Cheney should be on trial.

[Selatius]

11. There were rules of engagement in place governing their conduct

They broke them. In this case, they broke them...twice. They should have their day in court the same as anybody else.

The fact that they were newbies is no excuse in light of the fact that they ignored the rules of engagement such as the fact that they were flying over an area where they were restricted from engagements.

If you want to pin this on Cheney et al., you will fail in a court of law as the law recognizes that individual actions in a time of war are largely the responsibility of frontline officers, commanders, and their subordinates. Larger issues such as whether there should be a war and the policies governing the war are the responsibility of the executive branch of the United States.

If Rumsfeld or Cheney or anybody goes to trial for crimes, it will likely be over policies that violated international law and amount to nothing short of war crimes and crimes against humanity. That's different from what happened here. This, here, is a case of criminal negligence in my opinion.

I'm assuming, of course, the investigation's findings actually found these two pilots guilty of negligence instead of absolving them of any responsibility for breaking protocol.

[malaise]

15. I hear you n/t

[intaglio]

10. the Light Colonel attacked without confirmation

.... twice

Shit happens - but that is a Courts Martial offense.

Why are US officers NEVER subject to Courts Martial?

[magellan]

12. Oh, they are...but only if they defy orders like Lt. Watada

Then we get a highly publicized courts martial of an "anti-war" soldier.

But pilots like these, who certainly deserve to stand trial -- we don't even know their names or what was done to them. They probably received medals.

[intaglio]

13. You're right of course

But I was also thinking about the other such incidents:

the A6 which severed the ski lift cable in Calabassi (20 dead)

the F16 killing 4 Canadian troops in April 2003 which resulted in a "non-judicial hearing", a fine of $5000 dolars and a removal from flying duties

the A10's that attacked a NATO convoy in Afghanistan last year

.... search for "friendly fire wiki" for more

[magellan]

14. I know, it's far from an isolated incident

And these cases, whether due to negligence or outright premeditation, rarely seem to result in appropriate sentencing. There's a tradition in our military of closing ranks to protect brothers-in-arms who are "just doing their jobs" to rival our police forces. With all the energy focused on blaming the victim and sweeping it under the rug, no lessons are being learned.

:(