Not so much a debate as an international legal question, but I think it’s more appropriate for this forum. Mods move if you must.
Some years ago on Feb. 3, 1998, a US Military jet pilot was hot-dogging around in the Italian Alps and severed an alpine lift gondola cable sending 20 people to their deaths. The military held a hearing and the verdict was essentially “Inadequate maps, confusing terrain, we looked into it and we’re not to blame. Case closed. Go away”
The verdict (understandably) outraged the Italians and was widely regarded as a massive CYA by the US military, but the Italians (apparently) had to accept the verdict. Do we really have that level of impunity when operating in other countries as part of NATO?
If something similar happened in the US, would the US Military be entirely beyond the reach of non-Military legal actions?
Unauthorised low flying and low flying in unsuitable places are a continuing problem. There have been numerous such accidents but I know of no case in the US where the pilot faced criminal charges. I think the usual resolution is that the government pays damages and the pilot is disciplined within the military system.
I dont think they could get away with it in america. When you are strong you can tell people (in this case country), to get stuffed as with the example of guatanamo bay.
It does not appear that the U.S. specifically bullied Italy on this point (although I do not know what sort of pressures may be brought on the Italian courts).
It is my vague memory that during WWII, GIs accused of rape or murder in Great Britain were tried by U.S. Courts Martial and not by British courts, but I have not found any citations to support that. When other NATO forces have had accidents outside their home countries, how have they been prosecuted? (I mean, in 56 years, this can’t be the only such accident with planes and tanks constantly flying or rolling over civilian property and I would find it difficult to believe that only U.S. personnel ever have such accidents.)
In order for true justice to be upheld the executer of that justice should have the power to do so…the difference between legal and illegal is an amendment.
International Criminal Court (ICC) Treaty, to be set up in The Hague to try political leaders and military personnel charged with war crimes and crimes against humanity. Signed in Rome in July 1998, the Treaty was approved by 120 countries, with 7 opposed (including the US). In October 2001 Great Britain became the 42nd nation to sign. In December 2001 the US Senate again added an amendment to a military appropriations bill that would keep US military personnel from obeying the jurisdiction of the proposed ICC.
There’s another thread about the jurisdiction of the US on citizens abroad. Basically it boils down to the US claiming juridiction over US citizen abroad and anyone on US territory including foreign nationals.
While I oppose the actions of the U.S. in putting a shield around our personnel for war crimes, it should be noted that a training accident–even one brought on by gross negligence–does not qualify for a war crime or a crime against humanity.
Here’s what I think is relative to this case: preserving the culture of military fighter pilots. Theirs is such a dangerous job that you need half-crazy risk takers to do it and not get killed through hesitation or a momentary ebb in adrenal flow.
I suspect that Marine aviation accepts a certain number of gruesome accidents as the inevitable result of the warrior spirit, and that as far as their training or flight plan development goes, they would never deliberately waste 20 innocent civilian lives, but if it happens, it happens.
Don’t take the above as an apology or excuse-making. I don’t buy into the warrior spirit myself and have no interest in defending it. But if you asked these guys off the record over a Jack rocks in the O-Club, I don’t think they’d answer much differently.
It was in fact much the same excuse given over the killing of four Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan. Even the fact that the U.S. pilot was on drugs at the time was explained away as “well, they all take amphetamines, no big deal.”
Granted, that guy was punished… he lost a couple months’ pay.
Yes, and as we saw at Abu Ghraib, in the case of officers this will involve SEVERE finger-waggling and perhaps even a wrist slap. So don’t think that guy got off easy.
Well it depends a lot upon whether you are abusing those who the Commander in Chief has told you are scumbags or whether you are endangering a 20 million dollar airplane.
Not that lives were lost of course, but does the name Tailhook ring any bells? Once again the upshot there was “The culture must be preserved, so go easy on our boys.”
(Mind you, this was a culture that didn’t exist in anything like its current form before the Vietnam era, and our pilots did a damn good job then, too.)
Well an assistant SECNAV resigned and the CNO retired early. Unhappily Adm. Kelso was allowed to retire as a full admiral when he probably should have gone out as Vice or even Rear Admiral.