Another Friendly Fire Killing To Go Unprosecuted

[Aaron]

CTV News

No charges recommended in friendly fire case

Updated Tue. Jul. 3 2007 6:58 PM ET

Associated Press

MONTPELIER, Vt. -- A U.S. Army investigator has recommended that no charges be filed against the U.S. Special Forces machine-gunner who killed Canadian Private Robert Costall and an American soldier in Afghanistan last year.

The recommendation is in documents released by the army about the friendly-fire deaths of Costall and Vermont National Guard 1st Sgt. John Thomas Stone.

A report written by a U.S. Army officer whose name was blacked out says their deaths, while regrettable, are "understandable in the context of this firefight.''

The officer says Costall and 37 other Canadian soldiers were sent to reinforce Forward Operating Base Robinson for an expected attack on March 28, 2006.

The report, released to The Associated Press, says an "inaccurate target identification'' that night by the unidentified gunner caused him to fire at the rooftop position where Stone and other soldiers were crouched behind a wall, fighting off an attack by Taliban forces.

Costall, 22, was born in Thunder Bay, Ontario, and grew up in Gibsons, B.C.

This one's not as clear cut as the rest, given that it happened at night. But it follows the usual US trend of refusing to hold it's troops accountable for screwing up.

[the wicked prince]

Could get away with intentional murder

[Aaron]

Could get away with intentional murder

Well in the odd case where there has been intentional murder the US military has prosecuted it's soldiers. To my knowledge there's never been a friendly fire death that was a murder disguised.

[chitoryu12]

Could get away with intentional murder

Well in the odd case where there has been intentional murder the US military has prosecuted it's soldiers. To my knowledge there's never been a friendly fire death that was a murder disguised.

At least there's one good thing in this. So far the only ones that haven't been punished have been the accidents. Now, if someone went Full Metal Jacket and nothing happened, now THAT is screwed up.

[Sea Skimmer]

Casualty rates from friendly fire have in some cases been higher then 10-15% WW1 through the present day. This extends to the point of friendly aircraft sinking friendly ships, in fact in one action a single German bomber sank two German destroyers with just five bombs. Even friendly surface ships have sunk friendly surface ships.

Friendly fire is nothing unique to the US military, and the assumption with absolutely no details about the incident that one solider shooting another in a night battle must amount to some massive crime is insane. British troops have fallen to British bullets and missiles in Iraq and Afghanistan, I don’t know about the Canadian’s but the small size of the contingent would certainly be an aid in avoiding deaths in general. Canadian friendly fire certainly occurred in Korea. Of course, people never let logic get in the way of hating America.

A document on the issues surrounding friendly fire, written in 1982
http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources ... ader.asp#1

[Aaron]

There are institutional differences between militaries for judging what is acceptable freindly fire losses as well. An American officer once told me that the US military considers 10% casualties acceptable for friendly fire, where as the Canadian Forces does not consider any losses to friendly fire acceptable and will prosecute you if you fuck up. And in fact already has prosecuted one soldier in an Afghan friendly fire death and I believe is investigating another.

[Kamakazie Sith]

There are institutional differences between militaries for judging what is acceptable freindly fire losses as well. An American officer once told me that the US military considers 10% casualties acceptable for friendly fire, where as the Canadian Forces does not consider any losses to friendly fire acceptable and will prosecute you if you fuck up. And in fact already has prosecuted one soldier in an Afghan friendly fire death and I believe is investigating another.

Given the nature of combat do you think that's fair? I think all friendly fire incidents need to be investigated to determine if it was reasonable or not.

There's a reason they call it the fog of war, and I know you know that.

[Aaron]

Given the nature of combat do you think that's fair? I think all friendly fire incidents need to be investigated to determine if it was reasonable or not.

There's a reason they call it the fog of war, and I know you know that.

I said they'd prosecute you, I didn't say you'd go to jail. It's entirely possible that you may get off. It just happens that the one case the guy was guilty and the case was clear cut. The one their investigating now is pretty vague so fuck knows whats going to happen with that. You might get off, get a warning, a reprimand or jail time.

[Wicked Pilot]

I said they'd prosecute you, I didn't say you'd go to jail. It's entirely possible that you may get off. It just happens that the one case the guy was guilty and the case was clear cut. The one their investigating now is pretty vague so fuck knows whats going to happen with that. You might get off, get a warning, a reprimand or jail time.

Are you suggesting that in the Canadian military justice system a prosecuter is forced to go to trial even if the evidence against the defendant is weak or contrary? Considering the enlightened nature of Canadian society compared to the US I find that hard to believe, but if it is the case then that's damn well fucked up.

[Aaron]

Are you suggesting that in the Canadian military justice system a prosecuter is forced to go to trial even if the evidence against the defendant is weak or contrary? Considering the enlightened nature of Canadian society compared to the US I find that hard to believe, but if it is the case then that's damn well fucked up.

It depends, most of the time they'll throw in the "conduct unbecoming a service member" on top of the other charges. So if nothing else sticks they get you on that and you still get a fine, a bunch of extras and it looks like justice got served. The CF can be very rigid in it's application of discipline, something we inherited from the British. In this case if the JAG throws out the charges the unit CO can make the call on whether to nail you with the "conduct" charge. So even if the charges are dismissed then they still get you.

While Canadian society is very enlightened, the CF discipline system is not. The Queens Regulations and Orders (QR&O's) lay out very specifically what you can and cannot do and what the repercussions for breachs of the QR&O's are. While there is some leeway in the system for minor offences (IE: the RSM has the option to give you his punishment for being chronically late), for more serious offences it's pretty strict.

[Aaron]

Ghetto Edit: As for being forced to go to trial. I'm not really 100% sure but I've seen a few cases on base where it was weak and they took it to trial anyways and let the court martial sort it out.

There are also ones where it is a "moral issue", IE where the soldier with PTSD drove his truck through the Edmonton Garrison Headquarters while he was drunk. That was very controversial because he had PTSD and was severely fucked up at the time. The case was weak but the court martial found that because he was drunk he was responsible for his actions. I guess if he hadn't been drunk he would have gotten off for being unsound mentally. But I remember that case particullarly being week for the JAG.

[Wicked Pilot]

So if nothing else sticks they get you on that and you still get a fine, a bunch of extras and it looks like justice got served.

That neatly wraps up the problem as I see it.

[Aaron]

That neatly wraps up the problem as I see it.

Yes. Pretty handy article, that one.

[TC Pilot]

Well in the odd case where there has been intentional murder the US military has prosecuted it's soldiers. To my knowledge there's never been a friendly fire death that was a murder disguised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frag_%28military%29

[Kamakazie Sith]

Given the nature of combat do you think that's fair? I think all friendly fire incidents need to be investigated to determine if it was reasonable or not.

There's a reason they call it the fog of war, and I know you know that.

I said they'd prosecute you, I didn't say you'd go to jail. It's entirely possible that you may get off. It just happens that the one case the guy was guilty and the case was clear cut. The one their investigating now is pretty vague so fuck knows whats going to happen with that. You might get off, get a warning, a reprimand or jail time.

Isn't that the point of an investigation to determine if actual charges are justified?

[Aaron]

Isn't that the point of an investigation to determine if actual charges are justified?

Like I said, often the charges go ahead regardless. The MP investigation only has the power to recommend, not determine whether charges are laid.

[Aaron]

Well in the odd case where there has been intentional murder the US military has prosecuted it's soldiers. To my knowledge there's never been a friendly fire death that was a murder disguised.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frag_%28military%29

I should have specified in the recent sense. I know all about fragging in the Vietnam war.

The two incidents listed in Iraq I don't think really count as they didn't really occur in combat.

[chitoryu12]

From Wikipedia:

World War I: An unpopular sergeant was killed when one of his men came up behind him and dropped an unpinned hand grenade down his trousers

Now THAT, my friends, is original.