US troops 'won't attend inquests' (Afghan friendly fire)

Source: BBC

The US will continue to refuse requests for its personnel to appear at inquests into the "friendly fire" deaths of British troops, a report says.

The MoD has sent written guidance to coroners across England and Wales over the holding of military inquests.

According to the Times, its letter says the US "confirms categorically" it will not provide witnesses for inquests.

...

The Times reports that the letter to coroners states: "The US have confirmed categorically that they will not provide witnesses to attend UK inquests.



Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/6967982.stm

---

We're still waiting for Guardsman Mario Lozano who shot our Policeman Calipari to be trialed in Italy (he is indeed, in absentia). Go figure...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_Calipari

fucking maroons.

The British will just have to hope the USAF's invesigation is unbiased.

sorry, tough crap that's the rules.

"Well, I'm sure our Yank friends have their reasons. Stiff upper lip and all that, wot wot? Right. So, off we go, with the inquest. Sergeant, are there any witnesses? Just the dead? Well, dead men tell no tales, or so I've heard. No need, really, to go on with this charade. Who'll join me for cocktails at the officer's club? What? Not until 4? Nonsense! Got a key right here in my pocket. Adjourned!"

no criminal. No offense friend but we are still waiting for the Red Army Brigade members wanted for killing American servicemembers.

Our guy was a lawful combatant in a war zone, he followed the rules of engagement and acted accordingly, there was no crime committed and thus no reason to turn him over.

Same for the pilots, it is a sad tragedy and it will anger the folks in the UK, but our rules of engagement were followed and thus no crime has been committed.

The problem is that US always decide for themselves. Even when their soldiers cause accidental death to allies.
In the present case the witness was just asked to "appear", to "witness" indeed. Europe is not famed for hanging people on the spot.

The refusal - as in the case of Mario Lozano - means the US have decided what's right and what's wrong, no need for trial.
Which is a master's attitude, not an ally's one.
To seek the truth of it should be common interest - but I know I'm talking of another world, not of this one!

As to previous accidents, each could quote some. I may quote Ustica and others.
Here is the "Cavalese cable-car disaster". Account from Wikipedia:

"Initially, all four men on the plane were charged, but only the pilot Captain Richard J. Ashby and his navigator Captain Joseph Schweitzer actually faced trial, charged with 20 counts of involuntary manslaughter and negligent homicide. Ashby's trial took place at Marine Corps Base Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. It was determined that the maps on board did not show the cables and that the EA-6B was flying somewhat faster and considerably lower than allowed by military regulations. The restrictions in effect at the time required a minimum flying height of 600 m (2,000 ft); the pilot said he thought they were 300 m (1,000 ft). The cable was cut at a height of 110 m (360 ft). The pilot further claimed that the height-measuring equipment on his plane had been malfunctioning, and that he had been unaware of the speed restrictions. In March 1999, the jury acquitted Ashby, outraging the European public. The manslaughter charges against Schweitzer were then dropped."(my bold)
Both court-martialed shortly after for obstruction of justice ("because they had destroyed a videotape recorded from the plane on the day of the accident") they were found guilty.

I don't mean to enter such a discussion. I just ask: why do US have always to do by themselves when allies' victims are involved?
To co-operate to find out what the truth is seems a mirage.

and he followed our rules correctly. There is no need to do anything to him. Our system is setup to punish our guys and our guy broke no rules according to our rules of engagement. Why on earth would we give him to Italy if according to our rules in the war zone under our jurisdiction he did nothing wrong?

I'm not trying to be a jerk here, it's just this is really really simple, he broke no laws that would force us to turn him over to Italy. There was no crime committed according to US military law, the law that governs this soldier. And since the US has wisely not signed the ICC treaty Italy has no right to ask for him.............

In friendship, I just say if a US soldier kills accidentally a British one, he should face trial or at least appear in a British Court - or military investigation or whatever it is in that case.
There he can demonstrate that engagement rules were rightly headed and go innocent.

US go on saying NO. It's no good politics. It's Bush's politics.
US are already far too isolated and alienated from the world's sympathy because of Bush. No need to add fuel to the fire.

long before the current occupant of the White House. They are not policies enacted by Bush, they are policies enacted by the military chain of command. Regardless of where the request comes from it must never be given in to, American personnel fighting under American rules of engagement should never be turned over to foreign nations if they have committed no crimes under American law. I would hope Italy and the UK would do the same to portect their personnel.

I would hope Italy and UK would do something to protect their personnel - leaving the US army on their own in Afghanistan.
My reference to Bush was only due to his perseverance in asking more European engagement in that land.
As a EuroDem I'm a bit tired of this master-like attitude of the USA. If it's common fight to terrorism, than let it be common policies on accidents like that.

I hope the instructions and policies you described will be changed. There's something called "responsibility" that any individual should face for his actions.

according to our laws, our guys did nothing wrong. There was no crime committed, a responsible investigation dicovered this. Just say you're angry because you wanted something else to happen.......Don't say the rules were not followed they were followed and the correct verdict was reached.......

You have a flawed understanding of the British Inquest System.

criminal charges cannot be brought at an inquest - the purpose of an inquest in British law is merely to define the cause of death, Accidental, By Misadventure, Suicide, Murder, Manslaughter, any of the forms of Negligent Homicide etc etc. the Coroner would recommend charges be brought afterwards if need be - and in any case the ruling is brought in after the witnesses have finished

In this case, if all rules of engagement were followed the inquest jury would certainly be instructed to bring in a verdict of Death By Misadventure.

There is no "turning them over", it is appearing as a witness, which can be done "in camera", to allow the british system to rule definitively n a cause of death of one of its own citizens.

yet the "America can do no wrong" mindset persists even in the most enlightened of places - and therefore so does the "America is above the law" principle that is making America despised the world over.

What would happen in reverse, Americans killed on friendly fire by British Forces, what would happen if the British refused to allow its servicemen to take part in an American inquiry ?

I realise its speculation as only the American forces seem to have the "knack" of offing its allies in friendly fire and others don't

I started to write a response but it turned into a flame so I discarded it.

Thanks for putting the facts across without heat.

:toast:

"outside the law" An American serving in a war zone at the behest of America is not liable to British law. According to our rules of engagement nothing wrong has happened, it is still a tragedy for several families in the UK, but that does not mean we should change policy to appease allies. It has nothing to do with americans above the law and everything to do with the fact that Britain has no right to American personnel that committed no crime in accordance of following American rules of engagement in accomplishing a mission for the Amercian military chain of command. There is jurisdiction here for the UK, sorry..........

has to answer for a Damn thing were America!!!!!!:sarcasm:

I would expect that our allies protect their personnel the same way. That Iraqi recruit that killed an American last year? Iraqi law took care of that, we did not even ask. Why? Because apparently the US military is the only one that understands this, most DUers apparently don't get it.

There is no need to turn over AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL, to a foreign country due to the fact that AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL that are following AMERICAN RULES OF ENGAGEMENT must only satisfy investigators from the AMERICAN MILITARY if an inciden happens where allied personnel are killed. Allied countries have no right to ask for our people, ESPECIALLY if our AMERICAN MILITARY PERSONNEL are found not guilty of any wrongdoing. SORRY, but that's how all countries play, it has nothing to do with being an American and everything to do with following the rules of engagement. Don't like it, tough you know what.

Sanskrit Warrior is right here and he never said anything about american exceptionalism or that america is above the law in any way. What he is saying is that the way the ROE are written no crime was committed. The pilot is in no way responcible for the ROE as you or I am. While i do not have any military experience i plan on entering officers training after i get my masters. I assume he has a background in the military and understands the complexities of it more than the most of us and would let him correct me if i am wrong. While it was a tragedy, it was also an accident, close air support can result in friendly casualties but is also necessary to support those on the ground. The misunderstanding that many here have of the military and procedure is probably what alienates many soldiers from the Democratic Party.