Disgusted

RACooper · #1 07-02-2003, 04:31 PM

Yesterday while attending a Canada Day party for friends of mine that are shipping out to Afghanistan we recieved news from the US military:
__________________________________________________ __
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A US pilot whose bombing killed four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan (news - web sites) will be court-martialed for dereliction of duty, the Air Force said.

Air National Guard pilot Major Harry Schmidt last week refused nonjudicial punishment in the case and demanded a court-martial.

No trial date has been set. "The Air Force Trial Judiciary's Central Circuit will assign a trial judge and a trial date in the near future," the Air Force said in a statement.

Eighth Air Force commander Lieutenant General Bruce Carlson decided not to pursue involuntary manslaughter and aggravated assault charges against Schmidt, the statement said.

The nonjudicial punishment Schmidt rejected carries a maximum punishment of the loss of a month's pay, confinement to quarters for 30 days, restriction to a specific area for 60 days and a reprimand.

He now faces a much stiffer potential penalty of up to six months confinement and forfeiture of all pay during that time.

Schmidt, flying an F-16 fighter jet over Afghanistan on April 17, 2002, dropped a 500-pound bomb on what he thought was the source of hostile ground fire.

The shooting turned out to be Canadian soldiers engaged in a live-fire exercise south of Kandahar at a range known as Tarnak Farm.

The bombing killed four soldiers and wounded eight others from the Princess Patricia Canadian Light Infantry. They were Canada's first combat deaths since World War II.

Major William Umbach, the pilot of an accompanying F-16, was given a career-ending letter of reprimand for failing to exercise proper control over Schmidt and ensuring that the rules of engagement were followed.

A joint investigation blamed Schmidt and Umbach for the deaths, concluding their failure to observe appropriate flight discipline resulted in "an inappropriate use of lethal force."

The case has tested relations between the United States and Canada, and set those demanding punishment for the deaths against others who believe the pilots were being treated harshly because of foreign policy considerations.

A military hearing found there was sufficient evidence to bring Schmidt and Umbach to trial but recommended nonjudicial punishment in the interests of good order and discipline.
__________________________________________________ __

So what? Some trigger happy idiot who was more than happy to disregard orders, who failed to follow standard combat proceedure, and failed to even think is going to get a little slap on the wrist!?!!?!?!

It's crap like this that pisses me off more and more when dealing with the US administration. I lost a good friend because of some yahoo cowboy, and now that same cowboy is going to walk away! It's time the US military and administration was more accountable to both its allies and other countries........ oh wait, they aren't because they are the only western nation to oppose the International Criminal Court, and have cut funding to nations that did.....

damasa · #2 07-02-2003, 04:56 PM

I would like to see what would have happened if the situation was reversed though. I don't think it's fair to judge because had a canadian pilot done the same, I would tend to think that about the same would be happening right now as well.

War is hell, and things do happen and allies and "friendlies" are wounded and killed by friendly fire. It's sad but it's a harsh reality. In any event, it's sad that lives were lost, I think anyone will agree with that.

Edited...

Just wanted to add that as I understand the article, he is actually going up against a worse punishment than previously. As I also understand itl, a court martial doesn't usually go to the favor of the def....don't know the exact truth in that though.

Eirene_DGP · #3 07-02-2003, 05:07 PM

Ok, I might have misinterpreted the article, but didn't he give up his so-called slap on the wrist to risk losing it all with the court martial? It seems to me that he would have been better off with the punishment that he was given in comparison to a court martial. From what I have seen on the news, he seemed very disturbed by the military's suggested "punishment" and for that reason he chose the court martial....maybe I'm wrong.

#4 07-02-2003, 05:32 PM

i hardly see this as a slap on the wrist.

What did you want? for this guy to be hung? He made a mistake, war is hell and accidents happen.

Were the Canadians drafted? or did they volunteer? In today's American volunteer military you understand that in wartime there is always a chance you could be a casualty. I don't know how the canadian army works.

Irregardless, by going to court-martial, there is a chance he will be more severely reprimanded than with the non-judicial punishment. He can be confined up to 6 months and he risks being discharged from the Air Force with a probabilty of forfeiture of his military benefits.

While that won't bring back the soldiers that were inadvertadly killed, it could ruin this man's life.

As far as the international crimes court, i NEVER want to see us involved. That puts the lives and well-being of US servicemen and women in the hands of people who don't have their best interests at heart. The same reason i oppose the continued US involvement in the UN. As far as i'm concerned, tell em to pack their bags and get the hell out of NYC.

Kitso
KS 361

Kevlar281 · #5 07-02-2003, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper
I lost a good friend because of some yahoo cowboy, and now that same cowboy is going to walk away!

What makes you think he was a cowboy?

RACooper · #6 07-02-2003, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eirene_DGP
Ok, I might have misinterpreted the article, but didn't he give up his so-called slap on the wrist to risk losing it all with the court martial? It seems to me that he would have been better off with the punishment that he was given in comparison to a court martial. From what I have seen on the news, he seemed very disturbed by the military's suggested "punishment" and for that reason he chose the court martial....maybe I'm wrong.

Okay here's a little primer on military law:

The first punishment (which the other pilot accepted), basically ended his career and he will no doubt be barred from combat missions in the future.

Schmidt (arrogant little prick that he is) has public stated that he has done no wrong and is being used as a scape goat by the high-ups. He has therefore vowed that he will fight this, so that he can fly again. He has risked greater punishment (although reduced from manslaughter) for a greater reward. If the court finds in his favour, he gets off scot-free: no ban from flying, no reprimand on his record, no fine, no prison time, and no further chance for punishment.

As for the incident; the article put out by the Air Force Press has left out a number of facts.
1. The Canadians were in a recognized training zone next to the main base. This zone has been used by all members of the coalition and is a recognized "caution" zone for pilots.
2. The Canadians filled all the required paperwork and notified the command of its intent to train that night. In sort they followed procedure.
3. The ground fire consisted of small-arms fire with some support weapons (.50 cal) firing on a set practice range. It has been conjectured the "fire" seen by the pilots were tracer rounds ricocheting off of rocks on the ground.
4. The F-16s were in at no time in danger of being hit by the rounds as they were flying above 10000 feet. So even if the fire was directed at them, there was no chance of them being hit.
5. Schmidt claims that they were under fire from "light-artillery", a very dubious claim, as artillery isn't a threat to aircraft either. Nor were there any weapons mathcing his discription.
6. Both the AWAC and his wingman advised Schmidt to hold fire and identify his target. He then aprox. 1 sec later "rolled-in", or attacked the Canadians.
7. Schmidt has never apologized to the families of the soldiers killer, nor to his comrades. He has stated that he was doing his job and that these things happen. His wingman Umbach has apologized for a "grievous and unforgivable mistake" and accept his punishment.
8. Despite what the article said Canadians have suffer casualties in war after WWII. In fact the same unit recieved a Presidental Citation (the only non-US unit ever) for its actions in Korea.

Now what the Canadian goverment asked is that the men be tried for involuntary manslaughter, and that they never fly combat missions again. All in all a resonable request.... now the families have only requested that they be informed and that the men be banned from flying.

RACooper · #7 07-02-2003, 05:48 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AggieSigmaNu361
i hardly see this as a slap on the wrist.

What did you want? for this guy to be hung? He made a mistake, war is hell and accidents happen.

Were the Canadians drafted? or did they volunteer? In today's American volunteer military you understand that in wartime there is always a chance you could be a casualty. I don't know how the canadian army works.

Irregardless, by going to court-martial, there is a chance he will be more severely reprimanded than with the non-judicial punishment. He can be confined up to 6 months and he risks being discharged from the Air Force with a probabilty of forfeiture of his military benefits.

While that won't bring back the soldiers that were inadvertadly killed, it could ruin this man's life.

As far as the international crimes court, i NEVER want to see us involved. That puts the lives and well-being of US servicemen and women in the hands of people who don't have their best interests at heart. The same reason i oppose the continued US involvement in the UN. As far as i'm concerned, tell em to pack their bags and get the hell out of NYC.

Kitso
KS 361

Yes the Canadians did volunteer, we have been a volunteer force since Canada was founded (136 years); we have never sent drafted troops into combat.

As for ruining his life... TS he killed 4 men and injured 9 others (3 of which are now need wheelchairs). He ruined or ended the lives of 13 men, and he refuses to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

As for your views on the ICC, they are very norrow-minded. You expect other countries to be held accountable to what you percieve as the "law" (i assume), yet they US shouldn't be held to the same standard that they promote?

Kevlar281 · #8 07-02-2003, 05:56 PM

As difficult as it is to wade through your anti-American sentiment I feel the need to point out that a U.S. Serviceman has decided to invoke his 6th and 7th rights. As a civilian that enjoys the freedom that the military has chosen to protect through out our history I don’t feel it is my place to stand on the sidelines and judge a man and expect him to embrace punishment.

damasa · #9 07-02-2003, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper
Yes the Canadians did volunteer, we have been a volunteer force since Canada was founded (136 years); we have never sent drafted troops into combat.

As for ruining his life... TS he killed 4 men and injured 9 others (3 of which are now need wheelchairs). He ruined or ended the lives of 13 men, and he refuses to acknowledge that he made a mistake.

As for your views on the ICC, they are very norrow-minded. You expect other countries to be held accountable to what you percieve as the "law" (i assume), yet they US shouldn't be held to the same standard that they promote?

He's still going up against a court martial. He feels that he is innocent, I can't say I agree with him because I do feel he was wrong in the incident. But that's only my opinion and he feels he didn't make a mistake. He is entitled to a fair trial under our "law" and government. If found guilty, his punishment will be much worse than if he admitted his guilty to involuntary manslaughter.

Based on the facts that you presented about the case, I don't think he has much of a chance of winning. But he is entitled to that chance under our "law."

I'm sorry about your friend and your countrymen. Nothing good ever comes from war.

Eirene_DGP · #10 07-02-2003, 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by damasa
.

Based on the facts that you presented about the case, I don't think he has much of a chance of winning. But he is entitled to that chance under our "law."

That's exactly what I was thinking....

Damasa, your PM box is full.

RACooper · #11 07-02-2003, 06:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kevlar281
As difficult as it is to wade through your anti-American sentiment I feel the need to point out that a U.S. Serviceman has decided to invoke his 6th and 7th rights. As a civilian that enjoys the freedom that the military has chosen to protect through out our history I don’t feel it is my place to stand on the sidelines and judge a man and expect him to embrace punishment.

True he does have his 6th and 7th rights (slightly ammened for military law and justice). However I feel that it would be nice for him to uphold his oath as an officer (and hopefully gentleman) and accept his fault, and take his punishment. This is a sentiment that the Air Force tries to embody... just look at the oaths, and codes of conduct of the the Air Force Academy.

My sentiments aren't anit-american, as in not against the people of the US, but rather in fact against the current administration and against people who fight to protect an ideal, but refuse to hold themselves to it.........

damasa · #12 07-02-2003, 06:23 PM

Sorry about the inbox, I cleaned it out...

DeltAlum · #13 07-02-2003, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RACooper
My sentiments aren't anit-american, as in not against the people of the US, but rather in fact against the current administration and against people who fight to protect an ideal, but refuse to hold themselves to it.........

Frankly, Rob, you are entitled to your opinions, as we all are...

However for quite some time I've found your comments to be rather harsh toward the United States, and particularly our Armed Forces.

I have no way of knowing whether you mean them to be that way or not -- but the fact is that they do come across that way.

As for the "Friendly Fire" incident in question, I don't know where the blame lies -- although it appears to be with the pilot -- but you can hardly blame a person for defending himself. That's why we have laws and the institutions to judge and enforce them.

Personally, I admire Canada and it's people, but sometimes resent the tone of your posts. You may say whatever you like, within reason, but we don't have to enjoy the slights.

By the way, generally, the "a" in American is capitalized -- just as the "c" in Canada is.

Rudey · #14 07-02-2003, 07:18 PM

I agree with you. And just to be insulting Rudey...*Waves a giant American Flag*

-Rudey

Quote:

Originally posted by DeltAlum
Frankly, Rob, you are entitled to your opinions, as we all are...

However for quite some time I've found your comments to be rather harsh toward the United States, and particularly our Armed Forces.

I have no way of knowing whether you mean them to be that way or not -- but the fact is that they do come across that way.

As for the "Friendly Fire" incident in question, I don't know where the blame lies -- although it appears to be with the pilot -- but you can hardly blame a person for defending himself. That's why we have laws and the institutions to judge and enforce them.

Personally, I admire Canada and it's people, but sometimes resent the tone of your posts. You may say whatever you like, within reason, but we don't have to enjoy the slights.

By the way, generally, the "a" in American is capitalized -- just as the "c" in Canada is.

KSigkid · #15 07-02-2003, 07:40 PM

I think we all need to realize that Rob lost a good friend in all of this - I'm really sorry for your loss, my prayers are with you and the family of those lost.

I don't agree with what's said in your posts about the United States...but if I lost a good friend in a situation such as this, who knows what I'd be thinking.

Again, my thoughts and prayers are with you.