My Lai massacre

That pilot, copilot and the highest ranking officer on board should have been shot.
If not on a training mission in for military training specified area/zone (just check Jepessen maps where they are) military plane MUST adhere to civilian flying regulations (as per international Chicago convention regarding air traffic-especcialy annex 2 which is dealing with rules of the air). Simply put if he was on training or not, he had no right to be there at that altitude in the first place.

As per rules of the air specified in annex 2 of Chicago convention:
Unless otherwise specified minimum flying altitude is 1000ft. over the highest obsticle in radious of 8 nautical miles of plane's route or if over populated area 1000ft or height on which he can safely glide/land plane and not crash it on house or something (altitude also depends on course for simplifed separation even or uneven FL's Flight Levels - 1 FL = 100ft). Pilots in this case violated these rules. In such cases pilot (for doing it), copilot (for not stopping the pilot) and highest rankig crewmember (for not stoping the first two idiots) are authomaticaly guilty of mansloughter at least. This case was extensivly covered in our lectures in Laws of flying class at the colidge (BTW I have a degree in aeronautical engeneering). If tried by any other court (civilian be that US or Italian) thay would be sentanced at least for mansloughter.

The excuse that altimer was not working is lamest excuse that they could think off. It can work with those who don't know the procedures and instruments themselves but not with those who studied them.
Standard barometric altimer (it is mounted on all aircraft) is almost idiot proof. In addition to that plane carried at least one radio altimer. For all this eqipment to fail simultaniously is completly unbeliveble. In addition standard procedure in case of all altimer indication falioure is that plane ascend to safe altitude and get the altitude information from ground control. It would not include zooming the ski resort or flying into the valley.

If in VFR conditions (visual flight rules = you can see from the cockpit at least something) this exuse can't work. If in IFR conditions (Instrumental flying conditions i.e. blind flying = night, fog...) one absolutly has to adhere to gruond control instructions.

Those bastard were guilty as hell, they were just lucky that those high up covered their arses. :angry: :angry: :angry:

BTW
This accident was just waiting to happen. If you read quotes from articles there were previous complaints. Such complaints are ussualy processed by lagal air authority (in this case Italian) and conclusions are made public. Normaly legal action is taken. I don't know if NOTAM was issued to this effect, but as per rules of the air he had no right to be there in the firts place.

 

One could scarcely come up with a better example of what a jury of peers ought to be than in this case. Rather than just peers as in satisfying the legal requirement these men were truly peers of the accused.

You apparently have no shame about continuing to make pronouncements about things which you haven't even bothered to Google.
Just as with the previous false statements regarding the standard of proof for a General Court Martial you are wrong about the appeals process. There are two levels of appeal for General Courts-Martial. First to the US Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (civilian judges) and the second to the US Supreme Court.
As to what you are referring to regarding international scrutiny I haven't a clue. There is as much scrutiny permitted as with any other legal proceeding. The record is published.

Would you recognize justice if you saw it?
You have seen no actual evidence to support such charges yet you are ready to proclaim the defendant guilty based on hearsay; internet postings and news reports? :angry:
It's fortunate that the US Constitution provides protection from such unwarranted and unproven accusations.
No doubt they had opinions like yours in mind when they crafted the Bill of Rights.

ps...your point regarding the appeals process is rather obscure in light of the fact (that you surely know) that under US law the prosecution is not allowed to appeal a jury verdict to acquit

 

Perhaps that is how things are done where you reside but we don't do things that way here. We have the rule of law and people accused of crimes are afforded due process and respect for human rights is maintained.

It isn't disputed, in this case, that the pilot was flying lower than the authorized altitude. To prove criminal conduct however requires more than that bare fact. It must be proven (beyond reasonable doubt) that he was (this varies by jurisdiction) grossly negligent i.e. a gross deviation from the standard of conduct that a reasonable person would be expected to adhere to. If it were proven (beyond a reasonable doubt) that he was "skylarking" or "buzzing" the tourists this element of the crime might be met according to a reasonable juror.
However, where is the evidence of this? Several people here have stated that this is what he was doing. They obtained this information how?
I have seen no evidence of this. And lets be clear here. In a court of law where a defendant is potentially subjected to hundreds of years of imprisonment, evidence is what is required. Not emotional blathering.
Evidence.

You seem to be confused about how the law functions. Nobody is automatically guilty of anything (fortunately). The prosecution must provide convincing evidence.

Despite your advanced degree you apparently aren't aware of the details of how barometric altimeters function. The altitude above sea level is what the barometric altimeter provides. Not the altitude above the local terrain. When flying at > 500mph at an altitude of < 1000 ft through mountain passes where the altitude is constantly changing a barometric altimeter is essentially useless.

Covered their arses? Trying the pilot in a court where he could be sentenced to spend the rest of his natural life in prison for screwing up on a training flight? Not what I call covering his arse.
Guilty as hell? Having seen zero evidence?
This is also a good example of why we need nations "of laws, not men".
The rule of law and human rights are more important than crucifying a scapegoat to avenge the tragic, accidental deaths of these people.

That sort of vengeance and summary judgement is one of the primary things that IMO separates the more enlightened nations from the "balkan" mentality so prevalent in some places.
In recent years(Kosovo etc) we have seen the poisonous fruit borne of summary judgements based on hatred and emotional reactions and taking people out to be shot without due process of law.

No thanks. I prefer to take the risk that( rarely) a culpable person may go free rather than take all the accused out and put bullets in the backs of their heads.

 

.

Grieg , I do not want to go where this is dragging us ,
you are happy with the result , so be it !
be happy

I however took your advice and did some digging

here is a gem from the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

"Case Summary: SPCM conviction of sodomy with a child, carnal knowledge, failure to go, and disobeying an order. Granted issue questions whether the Army Court of Criminal Appeals erred by affirming the findings and sentence where the military judge, in accepting Appellant’s guilty plea to sodomy with a child under 16, instructed Appellant that his honest and reasonable mistake of fact did not constitute a defense."


.

 

Happy? That innocent people were killed in a tragic accident? That several pilots careers were ended prematurely?
No. Not happy.
Satisfied that justice was done?
To the extent that someone who has not had access to the evidence personally can be satisfied, yes, I'm satisfied.

 

.

did an edit above ,I read a few of them ,this one is the best !

.

 

Read the blurb you posted on the case. I'm puzzled as to why this is a "gem"? From the meager information presented it seems reasonable insofar as it goes. What specifically do you find questionable about this case?

 

The incident in question was a tragic accident caused by someone very stupidly breaking the rules, not a deliberate criminal act. Which is why, TISO, the pilot and others should NOT have been shot; manslaughter is not a death penalty offense in any country I'm aware of. Imprisoned, yes, but not shot. And jeaguer, why are you comparing this case with an apparent case of rape and sodomy? That is definitely comparing apples and oranges on an impressive scale.

 

Grieg you simply have no basic idea how air crash investigations are done. Basic idea is to find the poeple/organisation responsible and assign blame (add.1). Those idiots were flying in controled civilan airspace, not in for training designated area. As such they were flying in civilian controled airspace and were subject to civilian flying regulations (read my previous post).

Where were the incriminating evidence? Just a wild guess, that evidence were on destroyed tape.

It only has to be proven that it it was intentional. Any breaking of rules of the air (flying) and mainetnance procedures is gross negligence and subject of criminal prosecution. If those breakings result in the accident and anyone is injured of killed it is mansloughter and in case of wilfully flouting the safety regulation can be also prosecuted as murder. As per international obligations (Chicago convention, ICAO regulations...) of the US (US is one of original signatories of convention) it is not necessary to prove criminal intent (for mansloughter) but intentional breaking of the rules suffice. That is the reason that they blamed foulty eqipment (altimers). As they were flying in VFR conditions (daylight with relatively good visibility) thay should see that they were too low. If they didn't those who put blind pilots in the cockpit should also be jailed ( medical officer, and their commanding officer).

For my opinion that they should be shot as an example and i will not apologize as such idiots are making entire flying (civilian and military) dangerous.

Add.1
That is also the reason for blaming the pilot (dead man can't defend himself) on shaky evidence in cases which were clearly or almost clearly result of mechanical faliure, especcialy in cases involving design flaw.
Example:crash of B-737 of Silk air which almost certanly result of foulty rudder servo as plane clearly had case of rudder hard overboard - there at least 2 other such cases ( all 3 planes killed everyone on board). US NTSB ruled pilot suicide and didn't even bother to properly check the suspect servo that was sent to the manufacturer. In subequent analysis it was proven that this particular servo failed production control but was passed in subsequent control. It is also worthy of mention that producers team was on stanby when first news of the crash reached NTSB.

 

You make lots of blanket statements and bold pronuncements but where is your evidence? The prosecution did not even allege (nor the Italians AFAIK) that they were flying outside the training designated area. Their training area was in the mountain passes of this portion of the Italian Alps.
I imagine I know more about air crash investigations than you do about the US legal system..whether military or civilian which is what this debate is about. There is no mystery about the events or what happened. The pilot was flying too fast (probably) and too low (definitely).
That isn't even disputed.

In our legal system willd guesses don't count for much.

He wasn't tried under the ICAO (which governs civil aviation). The involuntary manslaughter charges require a gross deviation from the standard of conduct a reasonable person would adhere to(proven beyond a reasonable doubt.) Taking into account that the ski lift was not marked on the maps he was issued and the altitude regulations were not part of his mission brief.

I see you dropped the barometric altimeter claim. I'm amazed that you have also flown high performance military aircraft at high speed and low altitude through narrow mountain passes. Where do you find the time?
Surely you must have done this yourself to speak so authoritatively on the subject?

I'm not in the least surprised that you hold that opinion.

 

ICAO does deal with such incidents involving military which also involve civilian casulties (like KAL-007, IA-655...).

This was gross violation from "standard of conduct a reasonable person would adhere to" i.e. Rules of air as defined and which are set in stone for valid reasons in Chichago convention.
Altitude rugulations are Alpha and omega of flying and if he did not know them he would not get his pilot's licence in the first place.

I did not drop the baro altimer claim (nor for that matter radio altimer). If you read the post you would have known that. I know english is not my first language but i realy belive that it is not that bad so you could not understand what i wrote. I just said that they blamed it to avoid getting thair arses fried. But hey, if you are right they shurely must have been blind if they could not see that they were flynig in the walley and at broad daylight at that :lol: in that case it is their's MO's and CO's foult (this is ussualy called command responsibility) as blind poeple realy shouldn't pilot the planes. :lol:

If you would take time to read my post properly you could also read that i have a degree in aviation engeneering. I did do some work in aircraft maintenance (helicopters) and flew as crew chief (right now i'm flying a desk but i'll be making a comeback soon )... And yes Slovenia is mostly hilly and mountenous terrain.
In course of my studies we went in detail trough Chichago convention (together with some other conventions) as it is The corner stone of of Law of the air and also Air navigation as it defines the rules of the air.

Anyone in flying bussines will tell you that any pilot of any nation be that civilian or military or even a witch on the broomstick, should get his/her head chopped off in case like that for reason istated. :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

BTW

We are civilised. We don't fry poeple with electric currant, stuff them into gas chambers or shove needles with poison into their arms, that would be disrespecting their human rights. Death penalty is forbbiden in civilised society.

 

CONVENTION
ON INTERNATIONAL CIVIL AVIATION
Signed at Chicago,
on 7 December !944
Part I
Air Navigation
Chapter I
General Principles and Application of the Convention

Article 3

a) This convention shall be applicable only to civil aircraft, and shall not be applicable to state aircraft.

b) Aircraft used in military, customs and police services shall be deemed to be state aircraft.

You were saying?

PS..nice try to change the subject from your advocating the summary execution of the pilot,but no dice.
The US only executes criminals that have been given the full due process of law and have been found to be guilty of heinous crimes by a jury of their peers. A society has every right to determine what penalties are considered appropriate for crimes.
Big difference from taking people out and shooting them merely because they have been accused which is what you have come out in support of.
The US doesn't need those who advocate (and regularly carry out such outrages) lecturing them on what constitutes a civilized society.
It's kinda like Putin proclaiming "I am the only true Democrat?"

 

Very interesting, if I may throw my stick on the fire

I read the appeal on LexisNexis, an unreported judgment funnily enough

It shold be pointed out that the tape which was destroyed was NOT incriminating evidence... It was a tape of the accused smiling and doing barrel roll's which ended approximately 10minutes before the accident actually happened... Schweitzer and Ashby concealed the tape in their uniform before landing and later destroyed it... They did this because they though it would 'reflect poorly' upon them in court, not because it was incriminating evidence, so there can have been no intent to impede investigation... This is all from the testimony of Schweitzer and Ashby; no other witnesses; but the Court accepted it and it so the chage for destruction of evidence was dimissed, though Schweitzer was guilty of "conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman" (Which is apparently a crime in America )

In regard to the 20 manslaughter charges... The test for negligent manslaughter denotes that you have to be aware that the actions you are doing are reasonably capable of causing death or seriuos injury... The fact that the cables were not marked on the navigation map would suggest that the pilots thought they were in control of the situation... I imagine this is why the manslaughter charges were dropped...

As for the matter of 'prejudice' on the part of the court, there was simply no evidence to suggest that there was any... Though theres room for speculation; speculation is not evidence i'm afraid


For a REAL example of faulty military jurisprudence look no further than Russia, where the test of innocence is usually contingent upon the rank of the accused

 

.
where the military judge, in accepting Appellant’s guilty plea to sodomy with a child under 16, instructed Appellant that his honest and reasonable mistake of fact did not constitute a defense."

the case could be dismissed on a technicality , the judge not informing the defendant that his defence suck , thus creating a precedent which could be cited in any other vaguely related case

such as the infamous and successful plea of "temporary insanity " by wife murderer congressman sickles of gettysburg fame , a first which became a classic

I stand with my first affirmation of " skylarking "

the pilot was totally in control of the plane and bear the totality of the guilt ,
it was his actions and his actions alone , who led to 20 deaths
this wasn't obliterated by judicial procedures no matter how clever the sophisms
by failing to give redress to the victims , the court stand as an accomplice .
though technically it's all peachy
The lecture about the greatness and majesty of the U.S. judicial system are taken on board ,
we have pretty much the same here , based on the british ,
in fact quite a few of our early setllers had a close involvement with the court system
ours is widely seen as a trough where lawyers put their snouts ,
the innocence of a party being strangely proportionate to his bank balance .

but that's a convict outlook

.

 

I honestly am confused as to what makes this case so amusing. Someone please post a link where I can read the facts of the case and the findings.

Cases being dismissed on technicalities are not uncommon. There are valid reasons for this in many cases having to do with preserving the rights of the accused as well as deterring the police from engaging in such abuses. We can debate the worthiness of such things as the the exclusionary rule if you like (and if you are informed about such things) but vague snippets from legal findings are not very instructive. As it happens I don't approve of many of the technicalities which are often cited by appellate courts in overturning verdicts however intelligent arguments can be made that they serve a valid purpose. Incidentally they are not unique to the American legal system.

A judge's instructions to a defendant in regard to his plea or to a jury are obviously very important in the outcome of the case, especially if the defendant changes his plea based on those instructions and are often an issue on appeal.
That appears to be the case in the snippet that you posted but it's hard to say without more information.
If the defendants defense was based on his honest and reasonable mistake of fact (he honestly had reason to think that the person wasn't underage, for instance) and if the judge convinced him that his mistake was not a valid defense (and if in fact it was) then the misinformation from the judge convinced him to abandon his right to a jury trial and enter a guilty plea.
If that was the case then that is no mere technicality. If the judge can either intentionally or out of ignorance convince a defendant to waive his rights and such conduct is upheld on appeal then that would be a travesty.
No one could have faith in a system where constitutional rights were mere window dressing. Where defendants could be tricked into waiving their rights.

 

.

This is getting , as you guessed already , way above my level of knowledge .

We have a justice system here which seems heavily biased toward the defence , again and again reforms are discussed to bring the victims in the court room ,
in N.S.W. (my state ) since a few years we have victims impact statements in criminal cases , giving some voice to the aggrieved parties , as opposed to the blatant fabrications of character reference by the defence the bare faced perjuries of relatives or friends or the rent-an-expert mob ,
too often the benefit of the doubt is given on dubious ground
too often , the legal sophism of the worst kin prevent justice from being done , as opposed to the law being applied .
victims have rigths too , honest people maybe can expect the courts to pursue crime and make wrongdoers to face the consequences of their acts ,



.

 

I think we have found some common ground here
Although I can make all the appropriate arguments on both sides of the issue in a debate on the subject (due to a couple of years of law school, long long ago).
I am of the opinion that all too often justice is forgotten in the scramble to find a reversible error in a trial or to introduce that small amount of doubt in a juror's mind that results in an acquittal or in a verdict being thrown out on appeal. The cases we have been discussing are not nearly as bad as some I could cite as examples of justice being denied due to a technicality.
This isn't particularly dispositive though in the case being discussed since as I previously mentioned cases are not unique to the US legal system and certainly not more prevalent in the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

 

Hear we go again !

Here we go again, lets leap to the defence of all things America. Just so long as the "enemy" (whoever they may be) commit atrocities, then it is almost excuseable for the US to do the same ! If so, then what the f--k are we fighting for ! ? Let's just let them do theirs and we'll do ours !
Surely what we are fighting for is to prevent the "enemy" commit atrocities of the My Lai type; how can we even think ourselves worthy of trying to stop them, when we do the exact same acts of our own ! By the way, Grieg, I am sorry not to have been the person that raised this thread, since it would have served your paranoia immensely had I have done so !
BG

 

Re: Hear we go again !

Where did I attempt to "excuse" My Lai? You say I leap to the defense of all things American yet I use facts and logic to support my position not nationalism or patriotism.
I wonder if you actually read the preceding posts in this thread?

I stated in a previous post:

also:

After someone else posted this:

I responded:

Do you have anything of substance to contribute to this thread or have you now begun following me from thread to thread merely to insult me?
If that is the case then you are in violation of forum policy.
I will debate facts and opinions with anyone that has a rational argument to make but I won't sit quietly and endure mere ad hominem.

Another previous statement might apply here also:

 

.

this discussion is getting to the phase " quote " quote " quote " " "

As I said before , young men with guns are prone to go overboard ,
the U.S. army. stand justified by looking into the case with some degree of dispatch ,
the U.S. A. also had full, free speech for the increasingly numerous citizens who opposed the war ,
it is the hippies who defended the rightness of the military to serve such a society , by being free to criticize it it made its guardians task worthwhile

for the insurgents or guerrilla , the morality problem is totally different ,
The rules which apply are the rule of success , since conventional power is usually lacking , deceit and stealth are at a premium , ruthlessness replace firepower


.