Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: commish
"this inquiry is quite clear"

It is? Then maybe you can clarify what "stand by" means. And does the term "stand by" preclude a military combatant from defending himself. Also, please point out when the pilots were told there were friendlies in the area. And once you do that, explain how someone reading a transcript of an incident, while sitting at a computer at 1G and 0 knots can be excused for making an error, while a pilot strapped to an ejection seat in the 8th hour of a 10 hour mission cannot.

42 posted on 01/03/2003 12:40:03 PM PST by Rokke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies ]


To: Rokke
It is? Then maybe you can clarify what "stand by" means. And does the term "stand by" preclude a military combatant from defending himself. Also, please point out when the pilots were told there were friendlies in the area. And once you do that, explain how someone reading a transcript of an incident, while sitting at a computer at 1G and 0 knots can be excused for making an error, while a pilot strapped to an ejection seat in the 8th hour of a 10 hour mission cannot.

Yes, the term "Stand BY" is very clear -- be it from a Combat Controller (As in this case), or a flight leader, or a drill Instructor, or an NCOIC, or a commander ... if you request permission to take an action and you receive "STAND BY" as the response - that translates to "Hold all action we are assessing the situation" -- military members are trained from day one as to the full and complete meaning of the Term "stand by"

Also, I didn't even mentioned that in addition the term "HOLD FIRE" was also used. The instructions to these pilots were VERY clear.

Now that said, their calling of "self-defense" is a mitigating factor. If the pilot truly felt his and his flights lives were in danger by inaction, then that can be used as a defense.

I take back the statement about "friendlies" , a rereading of the transcript shows that the actual term Friendlies was not used until after the bomb was dropped. BUT, I can garauntee that in their mission brief they were aware of Friendly forces being in the Kandahar Area. Now, being in hour number 8 of their flight is a mitigating factor to this, and will be used by their Defense team.

Finally - if someone sitting at Computer at 1 G and 0 Knots "Committed an Error" that resulted in the loss of 4 lives and multiple injuries - you can be assured that they would also be held accountable.

ONE THING TO NOTE : These officers have not been convicted -- this inquiry is just referring charges to an Article 32 hearing. I can pretty safely guess that some of these charges will be reduced during the Article 32, and some may even be dropped. Then it will go to Court Martial where the Pilots may be cleared by the panel. However, I think I can safely say that at the least there will be deriliction of duty, negligence, and disobeying an order charges at some point.

Now for the Curious - I am a 22 year AF NCO, and have been through Law of Armed Conflict, Rules of Engagement and combat training. I also served air crew in the Gulf War (As a Courier, but it was still considered an air crew position) and went through that ROE training.

The rules are quite clear -- when told to "Stand By" and "Hold Fire", you do exactly that. Their defense will be the calling of "Self-defense", but the burdon of proof will be on them to prove they were in danger.

45 posted on 01/03/2003 4:02:34 PM PST by commish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson