The U.S. is being oh so helpful again youll be glad to hear

Discussion in 'Multinational HQ' started by FaceLikeAPingPongBall, Apr 16, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Cut and paste from the Beeb.........

    Coroner attacks 'inexcusable' US
    Breaking news
    A coroner has called it "inexcusable" that US authorities failed to release evidence about the first UK casualties of the Iraq war.

    Andrew Walker was speaking at the reopening of an inquest into the fatal helicopter crash in March 2003.

    The servicemen died along with four US marines in Kuwait.

    American authorities would not give evidence or provide relevant videotape to the court despite all efforts by the MoD, the coroner said.

    'Strenuous attempts'

    Mr Walker, Oxfordshire's Assistant Deputy Coroner, criticised US authorities for failing to provide "vital" information during the controversial Matty Hull inquest last month.

    In this latest case, Mr Walker told the coroner's court he had been refused permission to use American evidence that would help his inquiry.

    Mr Walker said that despite "strenuous attempts by his office and the Ministry of Defence", the US had again said it would not provide any American witnesses to give evidence at his hearing.

    "We are again at the beginning of an inquest without the necessary answers to the questions from the US service personnel," he said.

    He said the evidence included infrared tape taken by the air mission command aircraft which he believed held radio transmissions before and after the crash.

    In addition, footage filmed by an embedded Fox News crew from Fox News was also being withheld, he added.

    Fox News is owned by Rupert Murdoch - who also owns the Sun newspaper, which last month published transcripts of cockpit recordings from a US plane of a "friendly fire" attack on the British soldier Matty Hull.
  2. For those two statements to have been made from a Coroner's bench is pretty serious, and damning for the US.

    Positive response comes there none . . . Situation entirely normal.
  3. It just goes to show that the US can go bigger and better than us.... And there was me thinking there could by no more lothesom politicians than the current bunch at Whitehall and no more lothesom decsion than the Desie U-turn.
  4. It shows that Blair was so weak in negotiating British support is taken for granted......he made us pay a blood price, but receive nothing but disdain and contempt in return
  5. Can you imagine the public outcry of the American People if the UK didn't help them find all the answers?

    Bush you cnut! What you hiding now!
  6. Which incident is this in referance to? If it was an accident, or even the result of hostile fire, is it really worth displaying the footage? Personally I find it detestable that the media loves showing ghoulish tape at every opportunity for political and ratings purposes.
  7. The entire point of the coroner's court is to officially establish the sequence of events and hopefully the cause of death. Now, we can either take the US findings at face value (or after the LCoH Hull case, Pat Tillman and others where it's been established that US investigators weren't throwing straight dice) we can inject a healthy dose of scepticism, look at the evidence and see for ourselves and, even if it did turn out to be an accident, see what we can do to try and avoid any repetition.

    Sounds fair, no?
  8. I'd say it depends upon the circumstances of the incident and nature of the court involved. Is this coroner's court part of your military establishment or is it a civilian entity? Are there further politics involved?

    I can understand the frustration if there was evidence of a cover-up or suspicious circumstances but as it stands, it seems more like a beaurocrat getting annoyed when he's not getting his way.
  9. A Coroner’s Court is a civilian entity with a duty to hold inquests into sudden or unexpected deaths. The coroner is sometimes a lawyer but more usually a doctor of medicine. It is his duty to determine the cause of a sudden death and the events leading up to it.

    It is not a criminal court and the coroner has no powers to recommend that anyone be charged of prosecuted in relation to the death.

    In the UK, court officials are not political appointees. Coroners are appointed by the Crown.

    No, it’s an officer of the Crown doing his duty.
  10. Okay... so that I am clear on the situation, this civilian court is looking into a tragic event that occured during a combat operation and attempting to subpeona personnel who are more than likely either civilians again or still conducting operations right? Did the British military agree with the US Army's findings or were there points of contention? If your military was satisfied, why is your civil system getting involved? Sounds more like stoking the fires for political purposes to me rather than any real interest in uncovering facts but I could be wrong.
  11. Khyros, the coroners' is not a court in the sense that you seem to understand it. It is more of an inquiry into the events surrounding the death and happens in all cases where a death is unexpected or sudden. I suggest that you have a look at for more detail.

  12. Believe me, the Blair government would like nothing more than not to rock the boat seeing as our PM is so far up your CinCs arrse he can bite his tonsils!

    Read the initial post again and ask yourself, why aren't the US trying to find the same answers from their own people seeing as 4 of their own bods died in the same crash. Who's hiding what? Hopefully no-one and it was just a tragic event - but I for one would hope that if any lessons could be learnt from this to prevent further loss of life, and that we should take the opportunity to find them!
  13. Hmm... did a little research and the CH-46 crash which is the focus of this court was determined to have been caused by mechanical failure... something the MoD accepted. Not a surprise... the Sea Knight airframes are older than most of us posting I'm sure and has an abysmal record of late. I would definately be suspicious were it a matter of pilot error or enemy fire but that does not appear to be the case. My guess is the USMC considers this a clear-cut open and shut case and has little impetus to reopen it to placate civilians.

    What are the chances that the coroner in question is using this incident to help his case concerning the fratricide incident rather than because he has any real interest in the accident?
  14. Funny that, mech' failure. I say funny as the version that has been put up here (by the US government) is that it was pilot error due to a failure of spacial recognition (despite there being eyewitnesses who stated that it did a 90 degree nose dive into the ground!).

    It troubles me deeply that as 4 US personel were killed in this incident and at least one of the 'versions' as to what happened points the blame at one of them just why aren't there more people wanting the truth?

    Unless the truth that one's country sends its sons and daughters to war in Nam vintage aircraft with a well dodgy mech' failure record is something that is better covered up at the expense of the piolot's familiy's feelings.
  15. If it is an open and shut case, what have the USMC got to be concerned about? This is not an issue of a civilian court reopening a previously decided case to placate civilians. It is to do with the US refusing to provide evidence in a UK court or answer questions as to how this accident happened and potentially how similar accidents can be avoided in the future.

    The mishandling of events in the LCoH Matty Hull case and the subsequent press leaks and furore makes one wonder whether anything has been learnt.