A rchive Date
[ 23-01-2003 ]
Category
[ International Relations ]
sub-Categoy
[ U.S ]
|
[http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/World/2003/01/22/13862-cp.html
General backs 'friendly fire' defence
By ALISON AULD
BARKSDALE AIR FORCE BASE, La. (CP) - A general conceded Wednesday a U.S. pilot charged in the deaths of Canadian soldiers in Afghanistan might have genuinely believed he had to act in self-defence before training his laser-guided bomb on them.
But Brig.-Gen. Stephen Sargeant said Maj. Harry Schmidt put himself in the position where he felt he needed to drop a bomb on forces he thought were firing on him and his flight lead.
Despite the admission, Sargeant - who was questioned under cross-examination - said Schmidt broke so many rules of engagement he increased the threat he believed he was facing.
"At that point he has arrived at, at that end game, he could have believed he was doing this in self-defence," Sargeant testified at a hearing that could lead to courts martial for Schmidt and his wingman, Maj. William Umbach.
"I don't believe that particular part was reckless but I do stand by all those violations that led up to that point."
The day before, Sargeant said Schmidt didn't act defensively and appeared to be setting himself up for an attack when he veered back toward the target after seeing groundfire.
He didn't deny that Wednesday but agreed Schmidt could have honestly believed he had to act in self-defence when he fired on the Canadians he mistook for enemy forces.
"That's a critical judgment on his part because that removes the issue of recklessness and negligence with respect to the dropping of the bomb," Schmidt's lawyer Charles Gittins later said.
"He was entitled to use self-defence."
The statements were made during a day of lacklustre testimony that didn't match up to promises made by the defence that they would mount an aggressive cross-examination of Sargeant.
"I've got a big headache," Gittins said when asked what he got out of his comments.
Sargeant testified a day earlier Schmidt should have immediately left the area when he saw the fire. Instead, both pilots turned back to a site near Kandahar.
Showing a damaging computer-generated image of the pilots' flight path, Sargeant argued the pilots raised the risk to themselves and their aircraft by moving closer to the perceived threat.
Schmidt dropped both his speed and altitude in violation of the air force's rules guiding responses to threats.
Sargeant admitted Wednesday in most cases he would have to be instructed by his flight lead to leave the area immediately.
"Would you agree that in no place on that diagram could Maj. Schmidt disengage, unless he had instruction from his flight lead?" Gittins said in a terse exchange.
"No, unless he felt that he needed to do something in self-defence. He has the inherent right to do something and inform his flight lead why he's doing that."
The defence tried to have the earlier testimony stricken, arguing Sargeant was not permitted under the military's legal code to offer his opinions about the bombing since he co-wrote the report on the incident.
The investigating officer said he would rule on it later.
The defence argued Sargeant compromised the integrity of the investigative board. In a heated exchange, Gittins accused Sargeant of keeping a member of the Air National Guard off the board to avoid dissent.
"Isn't it true that you didn't want a member of the Air National Guard because you didn't want a non-concurrence?" Gittins charged.
"That is absolutely not true," Sargeant shot back.
Sargeant admitted he chose not to include an experienced F-16 pilot on the board but did so only because he wanted an officer of a lesser rank.
Defence lawyers also zeroed in on the general's combat experience in an attempt to discredit the damning testimony.
They played footage that showed three blasts coming from a 122mm rocket-launcher, similar to the weapon Schmidt thought was being used on him.
When asked if he could recognize the weapon, Sargeant said he needed more time.
Sargeant was grilled over how much time he had spent in an F-16, the same plane Schmidt and Umbach were flying.
They said because he had spent only about 1,600 hours in the fighter jet with none of it in combat, he has limited authority in evaluating the pilots' actions.
The eighth day of the hearing again was bogged down in the examination of classified documents, with much of it being closed to the public.
 World Fact Book (CIA)]
|