With the coroner saying the Killing of the British Soldier by US pilots?

Question

was entirely avoidable and unlawful will the British government push for extradition of the US pilots face criminal proceedings
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6449227.stm

the pilots did not follow procedures correctly and they opened fire without authourity that is hardly going by the book

Answer 1

You try "following the book" in the heat of battle, or just being in the theatre of war...

This whole matter will be politically hushed up as per normal unfortunately.

A Coroners Court is not a criminal Court of Law.

It was established that the Coroner was not in FULL possession of the FACTS of this incident - QUOTE the link you supply -

"The Hull family believes key information was blacked out of a US Friendly Fire Investigation Board Report given to the coroner investigating his death.
....The statement said the US shared all the information from its inquiry with the MoD, except those parts that had to be withheld for "security, privacy or other reasons".
...."No American witnesses gave evidence at the inquest and the coroner was critical of the failure of the US authorities to co-operate.
"I believe that the full facts have not yet come to light," said the Oxford assistant deputy coroner. "

The Coroner came to the only verdict he could based on the evidence he had in front of him.

Having said that, I do believe he made the CORRECT verdict, but my reasonings are based on those 2 pilots being on drugs at the time, albeit amphetamines prescribed by an M.O.

We are inundated with tv adverts warning us we will be fined or prosecuted if we are caught driving a car whilst on prescribed drugs.. and yet, a pilot, on prescribed drugs are routinely allowed to fly a lethal weapon under the influence of drugs...????

If a pilot has not had a proper rest, he shouldn't be anywhere near that plane - no matter what I'm afraid. The Govts need to put thier hands deep into the coffers, and provide the neccessary resources so that pilots as well as troops on the ground are able to get proper rest periods - yes even in the theatre of war.

The US asked UK for Military help. Let the US put its hands into the coffers and provide the money for more pilots to reduce debates like the ones we're having here.

If the American don't like the result, thier Govt should have released the facts they were asked for by the Coroner.

Simple as.

With these generous words from the very dignified Mrs Hull, THIS matter should be put to rest here in Yahoo Q&A. -
QUOTE -
"She (Mrs Hull) said the lack of help from the US authorities had been "disappointing.

As for the US pilots involved, she said: "I hope that they are at peace in themselves and that they can move on with their lives.

"I'm sure they are full of remorse for what they did, I hope so, anyway."
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6456191.stm
UNQUOTE a Lady indeed.

If Mrs Hull is prepared not to take matters any further against the pilots involved, so should we.

Having said that, the fact of this new culture of concealment that has arisen in the public minds from this incident needs to be discussed, and re-dressed.

The fact that the Military powers that be, sitting behind thier desks in thier offices thousands of miles from the theatre can on the one hand adopt this culture of concealment, yet on the other hand allow full access to the media is ludicrous, and a profound dis-service to each and every Serviceman and woman in the theatre.

The truth will out - the media will make sure of that.. eventually.

If you want to keep this culture of concealment cocoon intact - like WW1 and WW2, the answer is simple - do not allow media access anywhere near the theatre.

Hold regular organised media briefings to security pass holders only.

Simple as.

Otherwise, when asked by a Court Official to produce vital information for his detirmining a legal ruling, make sure you produce ALL the neccessary documents PROMPTLY and without question or argument.

What could be simpler?

Here's another quote from the guardian link below -
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1961433,00.html
QUOTE
"but the ever-tactful Donald Rumsfeld said that the UK's help was not necessarily required. "I feel a little ashamed . . . that we treated him [Blair] like that," said Myers. "And yet there it was - there was no payback, no sense of reciprocity in the relationship."
.........."When it comes to nuclear weapons, visions of uncoupling Britain from the US ignore a few realities that our senior politicians never mention. As Dan Plesch, the London-based academic and author who has made it his business to shine light on these things, points out, Britain's current nuclear weapons system (and, indeed, the one that looks likely to replace it) is umbilically linked to the US. The missiles themselves are leased from the US government. They depend on American maintenance - carried out at a base in King's Bay, Georgia - and American software. All this has one crucial upshot: though we got them on the cheap, paying as little as a 10th of the sum they would have cost if we built and maintained them ourselves, they fail what Plesch calls "the 1940 test": if we were at war without the say-so of the US, we probably couldn't use them. "The current system is like an insurance policy that the insurer can take away if they don't want you to use it," he says. "And how bad a deal is that?"
........"Tony Benn.... begins "You have to look at all this historically, don't you?", whereupon he tumbles through a story that starts with the colonial rule of George III being overthrown by "a terrorist called George Washington" and ends with the Bush/Blair compact. "Now, America is an empire,"
....."This has been an administration that's been extremely cruel to its allies. And the better the ally, the crueller they've been. This administration feels very good about the British, but for that reason, they feel very little need to do much for them."
..." What if Britain eventually felt so hurt that we decided to kick the special relationship into touch, close those bases, and align ourselves more closely with, say, Sweden?

"It's tough to imagine," he says. "It would be a pain in the ***, certainly. And losing the British in some sort of visible, public way would be a public relations disaster, even here in the United States. The US could get over it, depending on whether it had other countries on its side. But in the current environment, when the UK is kind of the last reliable ally, apart from the Australians . . ." UNQUOTE
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1961433,00.html

So go figure it ! The answer to your question unfortunately, has to be NO.

Answer 2

The British government SHOULD demand that the us pilots be extradited and stand trial but this wont happen.
What happened in this instance was totally avoidable..those pilots simply panicked and opened fire.
To shoot at an ally once is a mistake but to shoot a second time, after confirmation of 'blue on blue is murder.
I don't care what you yanky bas terds say, your pilots are arrogant sh1t stabbers who rely on all the technology on board...your a bunch of trigger happy red necks with one aim...'to shoot ANYTHING that moves.
If a person can't tell the difference between a large orange sticker on the front of a vehicle and a small tip of a missile then you should not be riding a skateboard, let alone sitting in a c0ck pit of a killing machine.
Unknowingly causing 'blue on blue' is one thing but to continue firing after allied confirmation is just plain murder.
And why should the people of the UK shut up about this atrocity...you yanks need to realise that you can't just kill anyone you want.
And for nekkra F..certain government bodies are NOT civilians and therefor should be given so called classified information, but this didn't happen.

Answer 3

"Friendly fire". In the military we actually call it Blue on Blue, because that's the colour of allied forces on the maps. After all there is nothing friendly about being killed.

Despite what most people think, these Pilots "did not" follow procedures, and opened fire without authorisation. as is typical amongst may branches of the Military, they closed ranks to protect themselves.

It wasn't an accident, it was caused by the incompetence of the Pilots, and for that they should be punished. However I doubt we will ever see them in any court.

Their has been no Justice.

Answer 4

Why blame the hacker all he was looking for was information about aliens I mean who isn't even slightly interested about them?I think the people to blame would be the people who made the security. Though as for the pilots it was a bad mistake which killed english soldiers but I don't think they should be sent to England to face punishment for it unless they actually had the intent to do it.They already have to live for the rest of their lives with the guilt that they killed allies.

Answer 5

the British Governmen is highly unlikely to demand the extradition and trial of US Air Force personnel, for obvious reasons. ALso, i don't know if the US would be willing to hand over the pilots, as they have been unwilling to release the entire cockpit video from the aircraft involved

Answer 6

Strange isn't it, our government (British) extradite our people to stand trial in the USA on a spurious financial case that was caused by the Yanks themselves but he Yanks will not help or send their nationals to our country in a case involving murder. Says it all about the special relatiojnship which is a case of "How high" in answer to the command "Jump". Yo Bush.

Answer 7

Everything (well, almost everything) is unavoidable. It's good to see that a coroner (medical examiner!!) can make official decisions about military actions in a war time situation (NOT!).

Look, stuff happens. The pilots were not to blame here. They were given the word that NO FRIENDLY FORCES were in the area. That information came from HIGHER HEADQUARTERS. So either (a) The Brits didn't inform the coalition of their movements or (b) The Brits did inform the coalition of their movements but the information flow stagnated somewhere. Either way, that has nothing to do with the pilots. They saw vehichles with what appeared to be missiles, and based on their rules of engagement, fired on them. "Who paints their missiles orange?" you ask? Well, it's a well known fact that the US and Coalition forces put an orange LZ marker on top of their vehicles to be identified. "Why not throw some orange paint up there and then we can look like them too?". It's not so far fetched, either. I've seen it first hand in Iraq and Bosnia as a tactic to confuse the Coalition forces.

Leave the damn pilots alone. They feel bad enough about this whole thing. They are not to blame. Find where the information flow got jacked up and blame that person.

Oh, and even though I feel bad for anyone that gets killed by friendly fire, IT HAPPENS. It's an unfortunate part of war, but oh well. IT HAPPENS. Deal with it. Jeez, it's not a huge deal.

And don't get me started on the whole "why wasn't the tape made available earlier?" BS because I don't want to have to school you on what classified material is and why civilians are not supposed to even know it exsists.

Answer 8

No it will not. There are existing agreements between our countries to cover such unfortunate occurrences. If UK pilots had fired on USA forces, the UK pilots would also not be extradited.

Answer 9

Unfortunately this story does not receive much press coverage in the United States. Whatever the facts are it's very sad that we are paying more attention to the death of Anna Nicole than Mrs. Hull's son.

Answer 10

The question is upon whose shoulders does the responsibility fall. The pilots did everything by the book by calling in to confirm that no friendlies were in the area. They were cleared to fire and told that there wasn't any friendlies in the area. Only after they had attacked the armored units were they informed that there were friendlies in the area.

In watching the video, the pilots weren't at all happy upon finding out that they'd fired on friendly units. Yet I don't see where the fault lies with them, but rather with the intelligence sector that cleared them to fire. Of course, the military trying to cover up the incident was not the right thing to do.

EDIT: Three thumbs down, eh? Well, I guess some folks just want some blood and are hoping that we toss them the pilots to help satisfy that blood lust. Apparently it doesn't matter whether the pilots are to blame or not.