In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

What do you think should happen to the pilots?

alledanalledan Member Posts: 19,541
edited September 2002 in General Discussion
Air Force recommending criminal charges in fatal bombing error

Pentagon-AP -- The Air Force is expected to announce criminal charges today against two pilots for the fatal bombing of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan.

A senior defense official says the Pentagon is recommending the charges against Major Harry Schmidt and Major William Umbach. Both are members of the Illinois Air National Guard.

Four Canadians were killed and eight were wounded when the pilots dropped a 500-pound bomb on them, mistaking them for enemy forces.

An investigation faulted both pilots for failing to follow established procedures to make sure they were attacking a legitimate target.

Although Schmidt actually dropped the bomb, authorities say Umbach is also partially responsible because he was the lead pilot on the mission.

Just when you think your out of the woods,a tree falls on you!
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • allen griggsallen griggs Member Posts: 35,695 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    This is like when a guy accidentally shoots his buddy while deer hunting. I say bring them up on charges, but not first degree murder.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • maggiethecatmaggiethecat Member Posts: 2,381 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    what should happen to them. a stern lecture. and nothing else. unless it can be PROVEN they INTENTIONALLY bombed the wrong target, they are innocent. accidents happen, its part of warfare. if we start charging everyone who accidently hurts an innocent or wrong target in combat, the entire military will be jailed, or we'll have a military full of e-1 and o-1. it just aint right.

    Give your kids roots and wings. and dont forget the guns!!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • CWatsonCWatson Member Posts: 964 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    If what I heard reported is true,that Schmidt was told "NOT" to bomb that target by a FAC he should be brought up on some charges,murder no,but at least a dishonorable dicharge.The second pilot,well it depends on the details and if he ordered Schmidt to bomb or stood by and just did nothing.If it was not the above,well accidents do happen in war and no charges should be brought.CW

    1.Before I got married I spent half my money on women and guns,THE REST I WASTED!

    2.KILL EM' ALL AND LET ALLAH SORT EM' OUT!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • 4GodandCountry4GodandCountry Member Posts: 3,968
    edited November -1
    Casualties of war, accidents happen. In the military * rolls downhill. If they are to blame then so are the people who are giving them orders. Repremands are in order, possibly take away their flight status but to charge them with murder is wrong.

    When Clinton left office they gave him a 21 gun salute. Its a damn shame they all missed....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    It depends on what they knew. If they were at fault, they should be court martialed. If it was a friendly fire accident in the fog of war, then this is just a political trial for the benefit of our Canadian friends. Canada should step up to the plate and ask for leniency in that case.

    - Life NRA Member
    "If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • gruntledgruntled Member Posts: 8,218 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    It bothers me that they are being charged BECAUSE Canadians died.
    If they had been Afgans allies it would just be ho-hum another accident.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • dads-freeholddads-freehold Member Posts: 1,361 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    greetings, some how this seem like a show trial . i agree that it depends on what they knew and if they were following orders, this maybe another lt kalley . respt submitted dads-freehold

    if your going to be a savage, be a headhunter
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • DancesWithSheepDancesWithSheep Member Posts: 12,938 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    gruntled: You bring up a good point. If a similar incident under similar circumstances occurred, and charges were substantially different or non-existent, I would think a pretty good argument for acquittal might be made. However, death by friendly fire due to accident is one thing; death by friendly fire due to disobedience of a direct order is another. Guess we'll have to see how this one unfolds.

    Why does man kill? He kills for food. But not only for food; frequently, he must have a beverage.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • nitrouznitrouz Member Posts: 1,820 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Claiming small arms fire was justified for a bombing run sounds like a little excessive use of force. Have you ever tried hitting an aircraft going 700mph at 15,000 feet?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.