Original URL: US Fighter Pilots Charged With Manslaughter Article in full, from Reuters: I'll let that stand for discussion. Also, I think the issues are apparent. Comments, questions, polemics, &c. are welcome and encouraged
Is the USA still considering that terrain a war zone? I don't know. As far as I know, military procedure can handle people screwing up and killing lots of friendlies. Meaning, there are mechanisms of military law both here and in the USA to take care of such idiots. They should face immediate suspension of all flight privelages, and a quick trip back to the USA for a thorhough investigation by the US and Canadian militaries. If found negligent (which I don't doubt), they should be hit with whatever penalty is the highest under US or Canadian law. In Australia, if you cause harm in the civilian world, you face the civilian law. But they weren't in the civilian world. They should face the toughest penalty offered by either the US or Canadian military for whatever they are finally charged with. You know, the Americans bombed a few NZ special forces troops over there a while back too. I'm very surprised that the pilots responsible haven't suffered weird accidents since then.
The pilots should not be charged with anything. When you train people to operate equipment that is designed to kill people and then send them out to kill people, then they are merely doing what they were trained to do. Any pilot in such a situation where it is possible that he might also get killed, is going to be on an adreniline rush the instant he sees anything that looks like it might be shooting at him. When the mind is in such a fast paced thought process it is very similar to overwhelming emotion in which rational thought, which is a slower, more deliberate thought process, is overpowered by an accelerated thought process. Anyone who has ever lost their temper and gotten mad at someone and then later regretted it knows the feeling exactly. To train a person to kill and then to send that person out to kill is the act that is responsible. If anything should be done, it should be that the military be much more discerning in sending aircraft to attack specific targets.
That's not the way it works. We aren't trained to pick up a gun and kill anyone who happens to get within range. We're trained to use the weapon, and we're trained to identify our targets. We don't walk outside in the morning and kill our neighbours, as you seem to be suggesting. We are taught to kill selectively.
The right way to kill I know, I know ... Yes, some people still do. This is one occasion, Adam where I have no quarrel with your perspective. My bigger question is whether or not anyone really knows who they're shooting at. I still hate the phrase, "This Bud's for you!" because those were the last words spoken by a US pilot before he whacked allied troops in Desert Storm.° And they kept the tape running long enough for the world to hear him realize what he'd just done. Nightmarish: there was childish glee in that voice when he fired. I so wanted to feel sorry for him when his conscience set in. But I couldn't. Nonetheless, I do accept the idea that if warfare really is necessary, there are ways to go about it. We can look beyond warfare itself and point out that this tragedy occurred because the pilot apparently bucked his checklist and willfully followed the wrong procedure. That, in my opinion, is why the charge is manslaughter and not murder. Notes: ° This Bud's for you: This is one of those slogans that I imagine is Universal. I've heard it from people of other cultures. However, in the spirit of the phrase, I should note that Desert Storm is actually, chronologically, the second reason I dislike the phrase. The awful beer it supports is, chronologically, the first reason, and probably the more significant. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
What you are trained to do and what you do do when bullets are spitting cement chips or dirt into your face or when bullets are buzzing by your ears are two entirely different thing.
Um ... er ... yeah .... Well, to be honest, shouldn't someone have thought of that before the war? thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Yes, they should have thought of it before the war, but you can't train people for real war unless you're actually trying your best to kill them. All you do otherwise is teach them techniques and how to use equipment. A mind that is hyped on adreniline is not going to take the time to think a situation through to a logical conclusion, it is going to react in a reflexive defensive action when it feels it is in danger. That is basic self-preservation that all living things are governed by.
Part of military training is about training our responses, so that we react in certain ways to any given stimulus. This includes gunfire. And saying "Soldiers go nuts and can't think when bullets start flying" is a sure indication that you've never been in the military. Part of training in Australia is to stand behind a concrete wall at the receiving end of the firing range while those at the other end fire hundreds of rounds downrange. I would suppose this is to get us accustomed to gunfire. It's really not a big deal.
"Yes, they should have thought of it before the war, but you can't train people for real war unless you're actually trying your best to kill them. All you do otherwise is teach them techniques and how to use equipment. A mind that is hyped on adreniline is not going to take the time to think a situation through to a logical conclusion, it is going to react in a reflexive defensive action when it feels it is in danger. That is basic self-preservation that all living things are governed by." Any human who is not capable of following orders 100% should not be allowed in the army. They are a liability. The pilot killed our solidiers because he considered his judgement better than that of his commanding officer in a situation where is life was in no way in immediate danger. If we let people like that in the army, say goodbye to any prestige the armed forces might have.
Again you demonstrate ignorance of military reality. Any soldier with a brain is going to be hiding behind something in battle. Only a moron would stand up in the open to get shot.
There are always cases of friendly fire in a war. Name any war and it'll have a case of friendly fire. Until the soldiers on your side start wearing bright pink jumpsuits and neon signs saying ALLIED, you'll have friendly fire
Adam, Read 'The Siege Of Dien Bien Phu' and 'Street Without Joy' c.renewed 1994. Both book are by Bernard B. Fall, perhaps the best writer/historian on the subject of war, and both book were written in the early sixties. His specialty was Vietnam and he will teach you that playing at war in the army and being in a real war are two thing which are not relatable. The first book is out of print, as far as I know, but it can be found in libraries.
On panic and soldiers It is worth pointing out that the report issued which recommended charges has a good amount of credibility, despite its posturing to effect acquittal. The mission leader, for instance, was an "average" pilot who chose to take a back seat to his wingman, who happened to be part of the TOPGUN program at Mirimar, California. Command and procedure lapses among US logistics teams apparently mark this whole tragedy, as well. Pilots were apparently being given inadequate information about where the combat zone was, implying that the pilots had no idea there were any training exercises where they were. And in light of this, with the implication of bad information, poor (or perhaps "lapsed") mission command, and a complete lack of intelligence, it appears that a TOPGUN pilot (the best of the Navy's best) ... what? • Did one of our best pilots panic? • Did one of our best pilots defy command? • Did one of our best pilots simply violate operating procedure? In other words, has a generally good soldier simply suffered a lapse of judgment which caused four deaths (hence "manslaughter" and not "murder" charges)? Or are the best pilots in the strongest military in the world just that stupid and ill-prepared? I have my issues with the military, to be sure. But they're handling the situation reasonably well right now. One of our commanders failed to exercise appropriate authority. One of our pilots violated procedure. Four people are dead as a result of this mix-up, and eight wounded. If panic serves as an excuse, well, we'll have to reexamine the whole of our military. Of course, that might be a good thing, anyway. But if panic serves as an excuse ... well, I wouldn't blame the Canadians for standing down and not supporting us in future efforts. Nor would I blame the rest of the world if they took the cue. thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Drifting into the central point of this debate - I have a real dilemma about applying any sort of norms and rules to war. This also applies to 'war crimes' cases. For a 'bleeding heart liberal' like myself this may seem a bit odd, but I shall try to explain. To talk of a 'war crime' or impose a charge of manslaughter on a soldier in a war zone is, in my mind, to some how legitimise government sponsored killing as 'normal' behaviour. To say you can kill this person but not that one is, I would argue, to lessen the value of human life and make it easier to fight wars in future. If we accept that warfare is the complete absence of civilised, rule governed codes of conduct, then how can we realistically impose penalties on those engaged in one type of mass murder over another? Yes, I know we have this distinction between 'civilian' and 'combatant' deaths, but in truth this is a sham to allow the stronger to pick on the weaker. Modern states with a modern army kill thousands of civilians in war. And why shouldn't they? Our aim is to do just that isn't it? If we truly let rip and allow ouselves to act as barberously as those engaged in war always do we break this idea that somehow war is a tool of human relations which can be used in a civilised world. Let's not kid ourselves, if we got to war with Iraq we want to kill as many Iraqis as we can. That's waht war is, and has always, been about. To make rules is just a way of allowing wars to continue in a society which has moved its standards of human life higher in almost all respects. That's not to say that a military should not hold internal rules of conduct. I just see these as different from the international rules governing war. Should these US soldiers face manslaughter charges? Well yes, because the US wants allies and killing allies through negiligence is no way to breed confidence. But in terms of a crime, I don't think thay've committed any crime that any other soldier hasn't already committed. War is itself a crime. To govern it is to accept it. Any views?
John MacNeil You read a book once? Wow. Cool. Captain Canada I don't think war in general can be called a crime. Killing is sometimes necessary. Lions do it. Birds do it. Lions even kill other lions, and birds kill other birds. Is that a crime?
Sticking my nose where I shouldn't Adam True, I shouldn't touch this point, but ... oh, well: • Generally when animals like lions or birds kill their own species, it has to do with economy--food. Some animals abandon their weakest young. So far, we're up to Sparta. • Rats will kill their own arbitrarily, I'm told. It is worth noting that such a notion has been countered by pointing out that rats do that when they are overcrowded. •_I generally think that human beings are supposed to be smarter than lions, birds, or rats. It is entirely possible that such a notion is utterly groundless. Baby humans shit themselves. Why don't you? (I do feel safe in the presumption that you do not, in fact, shit yourself regularly. Correct me if I'm wrong on this.) • Oh, one other thing: I once read an anthropology text that asserted "rape" among fruit flies. "Is that a crime?" That's what I asked at the time. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! thanx, Tiassa Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
