Pilot Loses Suit in Mistaken Bombing

[Eugene]

Source: Associated Press

Saturday, September 22, 2007
Pilot Loses Suit in Mistaken Bombing

SPRINGFIELD, Ill.— A federal judge has ruled against
a pilot who said the Air Force ruined his reputation with
its response to a friendly fire bombing in Afghanistan
that killed four Canadian soldiers.

Maj. Harry Schmidt claimed in an April 2006 civil lawsuit
that the military violated the federal Privacy Act by
disclosing parts of his military record without his
permission.

The suit, filed in U.S. District Court in Springfield, said
military officials should not have released to the public
a scathing letter of reprimand. Schmidt's attorney,
Charles Gittins of Virginia, has said the disclosure also
violated a settlement agreement that prevented Schmidt
from being court-martialed for the 2002 bombing that
also wounded eight others.

-snip-

U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott ruled in favor of the Air
Force on Thursday, writing that "the competing public
interest in disclosure clearly outweighs Schmidt's privacy
interest."

-snip-

Read more: http://www.telegram.com/article/20070922/APA/709220822

[C_eh_N_eh_D_eh]

1. Judge rules against pilot in bombing that killed 4 Canadians in Afghanistan

Source: Associated Press

SPRINGFIELD, Ill. - A federal judge has ruled against a U.S. pilot who sued the Air Force for allegedly ruining his reputation in a friendly fire bombing in Afghanistan that killed four Canadian soldiers.

Maj. Harry Schmidt filed a civil lawsuit in U.S. District Court in Springfield in April 2006 claiming the military violated the federal Privacy Act by disclosing parts of his military record without his permission.

...

U.S. District Judge Jeanne Scott ruled in favour of the Air Force on Thursday, writing that "the competing public interest in disclosure clearly outweighs Schmidt's privacy interest."

"The release of Schmidt's reprimand gave the public, in the United States, and around the world, insight into the way in which the United States government was holding its pilot accountable. Thus considering all of the circumstances, the disclosures at issue were clearly warranted," Scott said.

...

Read more: http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/070922/world/us_cda_afghan_bombing

---

I've given up deciding what to think about this guy. If he's telling the truth about how he didn't know there was a live-fire exercise going on, then he could be forgiven for thinking my countrymen were Taliban soldiers. But I don't know the proper AF protocol in this situation - shouldn't he have radioed in for permission to fire or something? Certainly, if Kandahar really had been under attack at the time, he would have heard about it from the ground forces, wouldn't you think?

At worst, this man is guilty of making a mistake that cost the lives of four of his allies, a mistake that may have been enabled and exacerbated by poor communication channels. He's by no means the first officer in history to make such a mistake, and he certainly wasn't the last. Nor did he deserve to be turned into a sacrificial lamb, even if it was my country being appeased.

[Canuckistanian]

5. Don't you remember this story?

I heard it so many times on CBC.

The pilots noticed some ground fire. There was no evidence that would lead them to think they were under fire. So they used the pretext of "self-defence" to attack the ground troops without obtaining permission first. So they turned around and let the bombs drop.

Only seconds after they let the bombs go, they were denied permission to attack.

They were hotheads, fresh in-country and itching to get their first kill.

[Spazito]

2. Mistaken bombing.....what a 'gentle' way of describing it

What the hell happened to "friendly fire" which, in itself, is a 'nice' way of saying killing one's own allies. Geez, I hate the media more and more, especially the ones who try and soften the truth for the bush cabal and it's followers.

[Posteritatis]

3. Dude, get the fuck over it already

Schmidt's attitude throughout this whole thing has been nothing less than obscene. Guy ignores orders, fabricates a threat, bombs an allied position, effectively claims they deserved it for practicing without his consent, and spent a few weeks rearing up on his hind legs to bleat in rage that anyone even suggested he did something wrong, never mind should have been court-martialed. Dude couldn't try to sound more entitled and infallible if he claimed the papacy through all of this.

Boo fucking hoo. His reputation's been ruined alright (well, outside of his hometown, which seemed to have decided that Canadians are all evil), but he's a bit off as to the reason for it.

[IndianaGreen]

4. Should we mention that these pilots were on Go-pills?

The military was giving speed to pilots so they could stay alert for long periods of time, then gave them downers to bring them down. In the aftermath of the incident in which the pilots thought the Canadian troops were firing on them, obviously caused by drug-induced paranoia, there were several articles on how the military was acting as a dope dealer to keep the troops going full blast for days on end.