US Troops will not attend inquests into british 'Friendly Fire' deaths

[BrainGlutton]

@GorillaMan

It’s just occured to me that this was a slightly silly question…how can a corpse be a citizen of anywhere? :dubious:

It can’t, but it is the corpse of someone who was a citizen of some country*, and which country is a fact of jurisdictional importance.

*Not applicable to the remains of Palestinians.

[tagos]

@xtisme

Are there any cite-able incidents of the US making a similar request to British personnel? If so, how did they react to inquests by local state coroners in the US making such requests? Did they go along?

If so then I’d have to say the US is asking the Brits (and others) to do something we aren’t willing to do. Not exactly being either a leader or a good ally. If not…well, that would be a different kettle of fish I’d say.

Anyone know?

-XT

I don’t think there have been any Brit on Yank friendly fire incidents. Not surprising given the force imbalance and roles played. It’s the USA who provide the close-air support.

A friend of mine is a pilot in the Royal Navy and he once mentioned that when he was training with US pilots he was somewhat unhappy to discover they had only been trained in recognising US gear.

[XT]

@tagos

I don’t think there have been any Brit on Yank friendly fire incidents. Not surprising given the force imbalance and roles played. It’s the USA who provide the close-air support.

While I find it hard to believe that there have been none (not even during the invasion?), I’m pretty sure there were some during the first Gulf War. How were they handled?

@tagos

A friend of mine is a pilot in the Royal Navy and he once mentioned that when he was training with US pilots he was somewhat unhappy to discover they had only been trained in recognising US gear

We train with NATO periodically, so again I find this hard to believe. I know that the NATO IFF codes are used. Coordination for air to mud strikes where foreign forces are in the area might be a bit more touchy I guess. I know US forces sometimes still get clobbered, despite being fully integrated with our network. Its one of those things where the weapons are so lethal today that if you see it and shoot at it, its dead…and it happens so fast that even with the best network mistakes happen.

-XT

[Gary_Kumquat]

@xtisme

While I find it hard to believe that there have been none (not even during the invasion?), I’m pretty sure there were some during the first Gulf War. How were they handled?

I’m trying to find some references to US friendly fire casualties from allies during Desert Storm, but not having any luck. Do you have any references for this?

[XT]

No, I don’t…just anecdotal stuff. I was actually over there during the first Gulf War and recall talk about some US troops hit by (I thought) British forces in a FF accident of some kind. But, it could have just been sailor tales without basis in fact. I certainly remember FF incidents where US troops killed allies in the first GW.

-XT

[Martin_Hyde]

@Gary Kumquat

But that has absolutely no bearing on the system that we’re actually talking about. A coroner in the UK has to be a barrister or doctor with at least 5 years experience. They’re appointed as a Ministry of Justice official, and as such any political showboating would result in swift termination of their position.

And some American medical examiners have to be both lawyers and doctors. But this does have bearing, because the United States can’t be in the business of vetting the various investigatory systems of our allies in arms across the world. The system of allowing our people to investigate what our soldiers do works, period. Giving our soldiers over to the authority of another sovereign state would be unconscionable. The idea that political showboating would result in swift termination is bollocks, because I’ve seen these coroner’s inquests in the UK used for just that purpose in relation to actions of American officials in the past. For example, one coroner in the UK who made all sorts of ludicrous requests of the American military did lose his job (although he wasn’t terminated, they simply declined to renew his contract), some two years after the fact. That doesn’t equate to 'swift termination" in anyone’s book.

It’s also worth pointing out that inquests into the deaths of UK military abroad always fall within the remit of 2 regions, as they land at either RAF Brize Norton or Lyneham. For that reason, the coroners in those districts have extensive experience of military fatality inquests.

And our soldiers fall under our authority, sorry, that’s the way it is, and the way it should be. The UK can investigate whatever it wants, but don’t expect us to ever surrender our soldiers into the British legal system when talking about acts during wartime in a war zone. If they committed a crime, it is up to us to punish them, not you. If you just want to use them as a witness, well, unfortunately allowing legal bodies in the UK the right to subpoena our troops just opens a Pandora’s box. They simply shouldn’t have any jurisdictional legal powers over our soldiers, period.

And again, none of this has any bearing on a coroners inquest. A coroner cannot find someone guilty of a crime. They can only return the following verdicts: death by misadventure, accidental death, unlawful killing, lawful killing, suicide, natural causes, an open verdict or a narrative verdict. That’s it. They cannot find anyone guilty of a crime.

I didn’t say they could find someone guilty of a crime. But a coroner’s inquest is a legal proceeding within the United Kingdom, and it would be a grave error for our military to put our soldiers into a foreign country’s legal system. We have our own legal system to deal with this, one way or another.

Before accusing people of moronic notions, how about you actually have a look at the facts. As stated above, the role of the inquest is not to prosecute american personnel or claim universal jurisdiction. It’s to reveal the way in which people died. If you think uncovering the truth is a moronic notion then really there’s little for us to discuss. It certainly seems like a poor basis for supposed allies to work together.

I have no problem with you trying to figure out how people died, just don’t expect us to surrender our soldiers over to you. A subpoena by its very nature carries the force of law behind it, if we viewed it as valid, we would be subjecting the individuals in question to a foreign country’s legal system. Once in the UK, who knows what might happen, maybe if the cause of death was found to be malicious those soldiers would be arrested and tried in a British court, which would be a wholly unacceptable outcome.

[GorillaMan]

I really can’t be bothered to trudge through all the non-explanations, but…

@Martin Hyde

…if the cause of death was found to be malicious those soldiers would be arrested and tried in a British court, which would be a wholly unacceptable outcome.

Gary Kumquat long ago listed the possible outcomes. It’s another step beyond a coroner’s verdict for any prosecution to occur.

[Gary_Kumquat]

I hate point by point replies, but Martin in the face of the nonsense above I’ve got scant choice:

The idea that political showboating would result in swift termination is bollocks, because I’ve seen these coroner’s inquests in the UK used for just that purpose in relation to actions of American officials in the past. For example, one coroner in the UK who made all sorts of ludicrous requests of the American military did lose his job (although he wasn’t terminated, they simply declined to renew his contract), some two years after the fact.

Oh aye? That’d be Andrew Wilson. Let’s see those ludicrous requests and showboating in full:

1. During an inquest into the death of a soldier killed by a US A-10, he asked for the video from the plane.
2. He found a verdict of illegal killing in the inquest into Terry Lloyd, and said the Prosecutor General should consider pressing charges. That, of course, is all he could do - as he has no legal authority other than returning a finding on the nature of the death.
3. In the inquest of Christopher Maddison, killed by UK troops during a river patrol he said there were “serious failures in the chain of command” at the crossing point.
4. In the inquest of Steven Roberts, killed by UK troops three days after he’d been ordered to give up his combat body armour, he said that there had been “unforgivable and inexcusable” delays in providing body armour to troops.

All to be found here. . The reason he hadn’t been sacked was because he’d not done or said anything to justify it.

our soldiers fall under our authority, sorry, that’s the way it is, and the way it should be. The UK can investigate whatever it wants, but don’t expect us to ever surrender our soldiers into the British legal system when talking about acts during wartime in a war zone.

Would you please stop repeating the same falsehood. As stated above, giving testimony for an inquest does not surrender them to the UK legal system. Hell, the suggestion was made for video testimony via sat link to ensure they didn’t even have to travel for the inquest! How the hell does that involve surrendering anyone to our legal system? Stop lying.

If they committed a crime, it is up to us to punish them, not you. If you just want to use them as a witness, well, unfortunately allowing legal bodies in the UK the right to subpoena our troops just opens a Pandora’s box. They simply shouldn’t have any jurisdictional legal powers over our soldiers, period.

Look, just repeating the same nonsense won’t make it true, you know. The request was for testimony, even remote testimony. Please would you stop claiming it’s asking for soldiers to be tried in the UK.

I have no problem with you trying to figure out how people died, just don’t expect us to surrender our soldiers over to you. A subpoena by its very nature carries the force of law behind it, if we viewed it as valid, we would be subjecting the individuals in question to a foreign country’s legal system.

Care to cite an example of a corona trying to subpoena US troops? Care to explain how granting a request for testimony is recognition of jurisdiction?

Your philosophy here seems to be “If in doubt, fabricate a point and then repeat it ad nauseum”. Shall I just accept you’ve not got anything actually relevant to add?

[tagos]

@xtisme

While I find it hard to believe that there have been none (not even during the invasion?), I’m pretty sure there were some during the first Gulf War. How were they handled?

We train with NATO periodically, so again I find this hard to believe. I know that the NATO IFF codes are used. Coordination for air to mud strikes where foreign forces are in the area might be a bit more touchy I guess. I know US forces sometimes still get clobbered, despite being fully integrated with our network. Its one of those things where the weapons are so lethal today that if you see it and shoot at it, its dead…and it happens so fast that even with the best network mistakes happen.

-XT

What my friend meant was their FF recognition training was to visually recognise US gear - US tanks etc. They were not trained in recognising allied tanks etc etc.

When ‘friend’ = US equipment only by default the rest run the risk of becoming ‘foe’ by default. Nothing to do with IFF. There are no IFF on vehicles - visual recognition, co-ordination of movement and painting a big cross on the top are the methods of avoiding screw ups.

In this particular incident the US pilots ignored the visual identification, ignored the big cross and went solely on their own Command and Control saying there were no allied forces in the area and so they attacked British Army units, mounted on British vehicles, sporting the agreed Friendly designation with tragic results.

[Gary_Kumquat]

Sorry, I just noticed this typo:

@Gary Kumquat

Care to cite an example of a corona trying to subpoena US troops?

In case of any doubt, I’m sure there are plenty of examples of Corona and many other beers compelling US troops to attend. Coroners trying to subpoena us troops, that I’d like a cite for.

[tagos]

@Gary Kumquat

Sorry, I just noticed this typo:

In case of any doubt, I’m sure there are plenty of examples of Corona and many other beers compelling US troops to attend. Coroners trying to subpoena us troops, that I’d like a cite for.

There is no such system in the UK. Coroners cannot legally compel foreign nationals to attend and give evidence.

The problem is that coroners are supposedly an independent eye on things. The US approach is that they co-operate with an internal MoD investigation and that this is their contribution.

Coroners, being independent, may not (quite rightly IMHO) be willing to take this investigation by 2 orgs having a vested interest in covering up their own screw-ups on faith. And in blue-on-blue incidents, almost by definition someone has screwed up somewhere along the line.

In the case of the National Guard pilot’s strike on the British force, which went ahead even though they spotted the Friendly markings, it doesn’t seem unreasonable that they face cross-examination. Coroners cannot impose any punishment or make recommendations of such.

The refusal of the US to either allow their own people to give testimony and the general withholding of evidence such as the video and cockpit voice recording can’t but help come across as imperial arrogance at best and stinking of something to hide at worst even if it is in fact just knee-jerk secrecy.

For me, as a matter of principle, no organisation should be judge and jury on itself.

[tagos]

Correction to myself - the standard visual ID marker is orange panels, which in this case the A10 pilots convinced themselves were rockets.