As an aside, I may have to bail on this thread at this point, since I'm finding it organizationally difficult to follow in threaded mode (and I'm hopeless in flat mode -- there's no way of telling who is responding to what)-- the posts are all mashing-up on the right side and it's tough to tell who's responding to whom and which are new and old posts ...

I'll stick with it as long as I can, but can't guarantee I'll be able to follow stuff =)

.
. . . . BINGO!

That would be a shame---

since your level headed assessment is easier on my
blood pressure than you-know-who's BullyShyte

but it's the same reason I can't respond to posts once
they become a mass of cascading quotes that I can no
longer tease apart once they're in POST MODE.
.

Back to Topic:

You bring up another of those "Nancy Pelosi moments"
WHERE LIES THE LINE BETWEEN QUESTIONING ORDERS/**
Disobeying Them/and COMMITTING MUTINY?


** note that I'm buying less than 50% of that action
since since I seriously doubt that they give a spit.
*Late Home Tonight Pt1 & Late Home Tonight Pt2
TOO MUCH ROPE

Having personally known my fair share of combat pilots, I can assure you they care very deeply about what they are doing and do absolutely everything they can to avoid mistakes ...

These are not the "Top Gun" maverick loose-canon stereotypes ... and they do not enjoy killing innocent people ...

That's somewhat reassuring
The 3 songs I just posted
above are by my Peacenik Hero
whose father, Fletcher Waters,
had been lost during World War II.
s'truth
I don't know any Pilots, other than
helicopter pilots attached to Med-Evac.

btw this is not my first war
I've been around since the Korean "Conflict"
I've known my share of military personnel
many of them family members. My mom's
people are the "conscientious objectors"
My dad's family have been in combat
since the Civil War.

Looks like you've got a bit of a "private little agenda" of your own, Ms. Butinski. Knock yourself out.

Yeah. When large numbers of women and children are repeatedly killed in air strikes by the same air force the world needs to see that those who perpetrated the act are acquitted only of they are free of guilt. Nothing in your posts so far allows for the possibility of pilot action exceeding ground based instructions. Not even arresting suspects for questioning let alone exposing them to cross-examination in open court proceedings should not be an option unless independent counsel so advises on the merits.


Probably because you're wrongly associating arrest and prosecution with guilt. There can be arrest and prosecution and a finding of 'not guilty' and no doubt would be if the facts you're speculating about are all found to pertain to the case. Pilot knowledge that the targets were residential on the other hand would raise a strong evidential burden of guilt irrespective of directions by third parties.

The law does not require action to minimise civilian loss of life as the United States keeps telling itself but action to avoid it altogether so only complete certainty about that albeit a mistaken certainty, can afford a defence. Either way the proper place to establish the guilt or innocence of those suspected of mass murder is a duly constituted court of law.

km

It was so remote from reality I thought you were joking. Why would Hillary deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply, deeply regret the civilian loss of life if none of 'em were civilians?

km

This statement gives me the impression that if a civilian is killed in an air strike you believe all pilots should as a matter of course be arrested and prosecuted for war crimes regardless of the evidence -- that they should be presumed guilty until proven otherwise in a court of law ...


That is always a possibility, although you have yet to present a shred of actual evidence that this is the case in this event -- indeed, you have presented zero evidence a pilot acted autonomously against instructions. Your propositions have thus far been pure speculation on your part. And people shouldn't be arrested and brought before a court on nothing but speculation.

If you have actual hard evidence that a pilot disregarded or exceeded their instructions in this case -- as opposed to your own inference or supposition -- please do let us know, and we can discuss actual facts ...


No, I'm asking why you insist on arresting and prosecuting people without any credible evidence they are guilty of a crime. Again, if you have evidence -- not inference or assumption on your part -- that a pilot willfully ignored direction and attacked a target he knew to be of no military importance, please present it ...


In a combat zone, that a structure lies within a residential district means nothing if people are shooting at you from it, or holding hostages, or using it at as shelter to regroup, as examples. You have yet to explain how a pilot is expected to challenge the information he is given that such a residence is being used for such purposes. The mere fact that it's made of mud or that it is located in a village indicates nothing one way or another - it's simply a building, and by it's very nature cannot indicate the intent of the persons within ... and certainly a pilot cannot be expected to magically divine such information from thin air -- so where is that information supposed to come from? And why should a pilot expect to be arrested and prosecuted for failing to make such a supernatural divination?