|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:21 PM
Posts: 2,957,
Visits: 5,313
|
|
No Charges for U.S. Pilots in Canada Deaths
Thu June 19, 2003
11:57 AM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) quote: The U.S. Air Force will not press criminal charges or court-martial two pilots who killed four Canadian soldiers when they mistakenly bombed an infantry unit in Afghanistan, U.S. defense officials said on Thursday.
The two F-16 pilots, Harry Schmidt and William Umbach, accused of showing "reckless disregard" for flight rules in the incident last year, will instead face administrative punishment, said the officials, who asked not to be identified.
Air Force officials refused to comment but said the service would make an announcement later in the day on a decision in the case by Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the 8th Air Force, in Barksdale, Louisiana.
http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml;jsessionid=5GP4IQFXAMXGYCRBAEZSFFA?type=topNews&storyID=2956669
|
|
|
|
|
Seasoned Vet
Group: Registered User
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:21 PM
Posts: 2,957,
Visits: 5,313
|
|
In spite of press releases stating that the AF is not proceeding with a courts-martial process, this article alleges that they have retained manslaughter and assault charges that can be brought at later dates. If true, how fair is this? Air Force Still Charging Pilot
Associated Press
June 21, 2003
NEW ORLEANS quote: A lawyer for a fighter pilot charged in the accidental bombing deaths of four Canadian soldiers said Friday the Air Force is secretly retaining manslaughter and assault charges against his client after claiming to have dropped them.
The Air Force said Thursday that a general recommended that Majs. Harry Schmidt and William Umbach not face courts-martial, but also recommended that Schmidt face two criminal counts of dereliction of duty in a nonjudicial hearing.
Schmidt's lawyer, Charles W. Gittins, said military brass are retaining the involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault charges against the airman to compel him to agree to the nonjudicial hearing instead of defending himself against the dereliction counts in a military trial.
"The Air Force statement was undeniably false and was made in a mendacious attempt to mislead the press and the public," Gittins said in an e-mail to reporters.
Capt. Denise Kerr, an Air Force spokeswoman, said in an interview Thursday that the manslaughter and assault charges had been dropped.
On Friday, Kerr insisted that it had been a misunderstanding. She said she had meant that the more serious charges could not be addressed in nonjudicial proceedings.
She issued a statement saying "it is very usual ... to not dismiss charges" until the accused accepts the nonjudicial punishment process.
Schmidt and Umbach were charged in the April 17, 2002, accidental bombing in Afghanistan. Both denied any wrongdoing, saying they mistook the Canadians for Taliban soldiers and were never told allies would be conducting live-ammunition exercises in the area.
The Air Force said Thursday that Lt. Gen. Bruce Carlson, commander of the Louisiana-based 8th Air Force, recommended that the Illinois Air National Guardsmen not face courts-martial.
Carlson recommended no criminal charges for Umbach but said Schmidt, who released the 500-pound bomb, should face the dereliction counts for not ensuring that the troops he attacked were the enemy, and for disobeying air controllers' directions to "stand by" before he dropped the bomb.
Carlson also recommended that an evaluation board decide whether Schmidt should be allowed to fly for the Air Force again.
Carlson also decided that he should determine, in an administrative proceeding, whether to discipline Schmidt for dereliction. The maximum punishment would be a reprimand, forfeiture of one month's pay, confinement to quarters for a month and travel restrictions for two months. The Air Force said Schmidt would admit no wrongdoing by accepting Carlson's determination.
Gittins, the defense lawyer, said he and Schmidt would decide within two weeks whether to reject Carlson's recommended punishment and face the allegations in a court-martial, or military trial.
Schmidt, 37, and Umbach, 44, had been the first Air Force pilots to face homicide charges as a result of a friendly fire incident during combat.
Defense attorneys blamed Air Force officials, saying they had ignored a military communications breakdown that caused the accident. The attorneys also suggested Air Force-issued amphetamines, given to help airmen stay awake during long missions, had clouded the pilots' judgment.
A joint U.S.-Canadian investigation into the bombing blamed the pilots. An Air Force judge in January recommended all criminal charges be dropped and that the pilots instead face internal Air Force discipline.
The April 17, 2002, bombing killed Sgt. Marc Leger, Pvt. Richard Green, Cpl. Ainsworth Dyer and Pvt. Nathan Smith and wounded eight other Canadians. They were the first Canadians to die in combat since the Korean War.
http://www.military.com/NewsContent?file=FL_pilot_062103
|
|
|
|
|
Strac Trooper
      
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 12/7/2006 4:19 PM
Posts: 1,439,
Visits: 46
|
|
| I don't know how the legalities work with what the air force is allegedly doing, but I am glad to see that the pilots aren't being court martialed. I don't know how the rules of engagement are for pilots, but I have to believe that they sincerly believed the targets they were engaging were hostile targets.
|
|
|
|
|
Trooper
      
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2008 11:38 PM
Posts: 544,
Visits: 17
|
|
I dont think they should be court martialed, but they should never be allowed to fly again.
Proud Canadian Redneck
|
|
|
|
|
Strac Trooper
      
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 12/7/2006 4:19 PM
Posts: 1,439,
Visits: 46
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Canuck
I dont think they should be court martialed, but they should never be allowed to fly again.
I can see that as a fair view from a canadian, and I respect your view on that. However, I don't believe grounding them is the answer. There are a lot of factors in this. Was the intelligence good? Was the ground troops where they were suppose to be? Did the pilots follow all procedures prior to engaging? Was there another source of confirmation in identifying the targets?
I remember reading the thread where the pilots were charged and I don't know if all the circumstances of the mission were disclosed to us or not. I do know that they made a big issue out of the "stay awake" drugs the pilots used. If the drugs ere authorized by the government for pilots use, then why punish the pilots for using them? If indeed the drugs are to blame for the tragic encounter.
|
|
|
|
|
Trooper
      
Group: Registered User
Last Login: 10/2/2008 11:38 PM
Posts: 544,
Visits: 17
|
|
They werent supposed to engage the targets, they were told not to. They knew there was training in the area. And they werent supposed to be flying over that area.
Proud Canadian Redneck
|
|
|
|
|
BS6's Dude
Group: Community Supporter
Last Login: 11/16/2008 1:14 PM
Posts: 3,043,
Visits: 4,285
|
|
How about this for a factor -
I heard from one of the TACP guys who was involved in training these guys prior to their deployment that they were excessively arrogant (typical for fighter types)and acted like they knew it all during their CAS training.
If that's true, they should DEFINITELY be grounded - FOR LIFE.
|
|
|
|
| | |