Fury at American contempt for British war dead

#1
A diplomatic row erupted between London and Washington ght over George Bush's bid to cover up the way bungling US soldiers killed British servicemen in Iraq.

The President's envoy in the UK has been summoned to a humiliating dressing down in Whitehall tomorrow because of a White House refusal to make American troops answer in British courts for their mistakes on the battlefield. The unprecedented move by Justice Minister Harriet Harman marks one of the biggest public rifts between the allies since Mr Blair came to power.

Source: Mail on Sunday

What are they so afraid of?
 
#2
What are they so afraid of?



The truth maybe.................?
 
#5
And the truth is they are fcuking rubbish. Bloody cadences on a run, wo hah for the morning, etc. etc.

Basically their pilots have superior weapons skills but p1ss poor recognition skills, saw a video once where they explained away the destruction of their own lads by a guy who should have blatently known he smashing up his own side. And then some drip comes on saying a combat pilot is probably too cautious for his own good at times!!!!
 
#8
Sorry not to be joining the "We hate the Septics" club, but do you REALLY want the British civilian courts to set the precedent of holding foreign soldiers on operations to account for ACCIDENTAL killing of Brits? If we do it in our courts, what's to stop other countries doing it in theirs? Can you imagine surrendering the RRF Squaddies involved in the Breadbasket "abuses" to the local Iraqi courts? These matters are dealt with best by military justice.

Blue-on-blues happen in wartime, not just to the Septics. To hold soldiers on Ops to account in civ courts is, to quote some movie or other, "Like handing out speeding tickets at the Indy 500".
 
#9
Malteser said:
They need to take a serious look when more allies are killed by "friendly fire" from Americans than any other country.
if the americans are known to be shooting and not thinking; resulting in blue on blue incidents, then they may have something in common with the paras.
 
#10
In no way have I or anyone else started any Anti Septic comments. After working with them in Iraq I have nothing aginst those on the front line doing their jobs properly.

I am well aware and gorwn up to know that in a combat zone there are risks and that blue and blue will happen, but some of the cases recently can not be explained by accident but by purle negligence and unprofessional conduct.

No one has advocated trying them ina British Court, it is a Coroners Court they would be testifying in. If a case is a genuine accident then fine, but when it is not then yes I do want those responsible to held to account.

Anyone remember the Press Convoy that got took out live on TV by them, despite the convoy having an escort and full plans being sent to Command. Anyone know what happened to them.

There was a case in Iraq on the base I was at, the guy (American) in the tower was so crap he mistook a blond woman standing in a secure compound in US Uniform as an insurgent and shot at her. You trying to say incidents like that are accident?
 
#11
Accidents happen in war. The fog of war so to speak. One issue is that most of our allies dont provide their forces with adequate equipment for IFF for example. A US soldier has several IFR markers/beacons as part of his kit. Vehicles have Blue Force Tracker which marks friendly forces on the battlefield. The US provided UK forces with this system prior to the start of OIF. Is this fool proof ? No. US forces have had a number of blue on blue incidents ranging from rifle fire to USAF bombs. Any death is tragic and technology is being used to reduce the risk but there is still the human element.
 
#12
I agree with Malteser but would add: if they're going to be held to account - let it be done by their own people. We're not entirely innocent in this area and something like this could bounce back and bite us in the arrse.
 
#13
The problem will always remain with the lack of accountability, equipment failure and human error happens but when an incident is shown to be entirly avoidable like the bombing of the canadians in Astan, the consequences seem paltry in comparison.

Brassing up allied forces againt ROE or in the case of the Canadian losses, dropping a bomb after being clearly refused permission to engage and against the advice of his navigator does not seem to carry the sort of consequences for the perpatraitor that would lead to better drills in the future.

US forces accept blue on blue and factor them in to loss projections, what message does this send out to their own forces.
 
#14
Themanwho said:
Sorry not to be joining the "We hate the Septics" club, but do you REALLY want the British civilian courts to set the precedent of holding foreign soldiers on operations to account for ACCIDENTAL killing of Brits?
The courts are there to determine if it was a genuine accidents, or if it was negligence.

So, in short, yes. Yes I would like a precedent set.
 
#15
Playing devils advocate here - has there been an inquiry into the British Blue on Blues yet - and have any of those been declared unlawful killings???
 
#16
Chalky said:
Themanwho said:
Sorry not to be joining the "We hate the Septics" club, but do you REALLY want the British civilian courts to set the precedent of holding foreign soldiers on operations to account for ACCIDENTAL killing of Brits?
The courts are there to determine if it was a genuine accidents, or if it was negligence.

So, in short, yes. Yes I would like a precedent set.
In my opinion: it's wartime, so courts martial should be used. It's got nothing to do with the civvy judiciary.
 
#17
Unlike our government the US do not leave their troops to face a media circus for honest mistakes, no matter how tragic. It would be nice to know how the US forces dealt with the cases internally. But it is bad enough to know you have killed members of your own side without being paraded in front of the media i feel.

Also it is not just a US and UK issue. They US government refused to put their troops in front of Canaian boards of inquiry also.
 
#18
smoojalooge said:
Unlike our government the US do not leave their troops to face a media circus for honest mistakes, no matter how tragic. It would be nice to know how the US forces dealt with the cases internally. But it is bad enough to know you have killed members of your own side without being paraded in front of the media i feel.

Also it is not just a US and UK issue. They US government refused to put their troops in front of Canaian boards of inquiry also.
And that is part of the problem. Genuine accidents happen in a combat zone, but negligence should be addressed. Is it not true that the Brits have lost more troops to Americans in recent conflicts than any other ally?

The US Snr Command act the same way our Government do in thinking that they account to no one, how long was the prisoner abuse going on for before investigations were carried out, it was only after it broke in the press. I have seen first hand how some elements of the US Military think they are the law and that it does not apply to them. I CAN not and WILL not accept that all the deaths by "friendly fire" are accidents.
 
#19
Sven said:
Playing devils advocate here - has there been an inquiry into the British Blue on Blues yet - and have any of those been declared unlawful killings???
The military investigation into the Challenger-on-Challenger incident was released some time ago. If I recall, they decided that there were a couple of balls-ups, but that it wasn't anything criminal. More of a 'lessons-learned, how do we avoid this again' thing. Don't know what the Coroner's inquest said.

I don't see the US ever sending troops to testify in person in the UK, but I do think that a reasonable accomodation would be to either provide access to the soldier, or to have the soldier send a sworn statement to the inquest.

NTM
 
#20
Malteser said:
smoojalooge said:
Unlike our government the US do not leave their troops to face a media circus for honest mistakes, no matter how tragic. It would be nice to know how the US forces dealt with the cases internally. But it is bad enough to know you have killed members of your own side without being paraded in front of the media i feel.

Also it is not just a US and UK issue. They US government refused to put their troops in front of Canaian boards of inquiry also.
And that is part of the problem. Genuine accidents happen in a combat zone, but negligence should be addressed. Is it not true that the Brits have lost more troops to Americans in recent conflicts than any other ally?

The US Snr Command act the same way our Government do in thinking that they account to no one, how long was the prisoner abuse going on for before investigations were carried out, it was only after it broke in the press. I have seen first hand how some elements of the US Military think they are the law and that it does not apply to them. I CAN not and WILL not accept that all the deaths by "friendly fire" are accidents.
Your point on the abuse trials aren't relevant as we are not talking about war crimes but blue on blue incidents. To clarify what i hinted at in my post. Is that I didn't believe that the soldiers who made the mistakes should be hauled into the limelight of the international press.

However the US Government should if not co-operate fully with their allies, they should look into the incidents themselves internally to find out why it has happened and to prevent it happening so often with their forces.
 

Similar threads

New Posts

Latest Threads