Security or cover-up?

[bigfatron]

How far should we allow the authorities to use the requirements of national security to over-ride our freedoms and ignore legal process?

I ask on the back of the inquest into the death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6323289.stm

His grieving family have been delayed by four years from finding out how and why he died, although it was known almost immediately that he was the victim of friendly fire from an A10. Only in the last few weeks have the military on either side of the Atlantic stopped denying the existence of the cockpit video that records the actions of the pilots who fired. Now it emerges that the video includes the words "Someone is going to jail for this...". However, the UK military is stating that the US authorities will not agree to release the video to be seen by the coroner's jury.

In what circumstances should military authorities be entitled to ignore legal requirements that all other parts of society have to comply with?

And who should ensure that there are genuine national security considerations at stake, rather than a desire to avoid embarrassment?

Any thoughts....

 

[GinandTonic]

How far should we allow the authorities to use the requirements of national security to over-ride our freedoms and ignore legal process?

I ask on the back of the inquest into the death of Lance Corporal Matty Hull.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6323289.stm

His grieving family have been delayed by four years from finding out how and why he died, although it was known almost immediately that he was the victim of friendly fire from an A10. Only in the last few weeks have the military on either side of the Atlantic stopped denying the existence of the cockpit video that records the actions of the pilots who fired. Now it emerges that the video includes the words "Someone is going to jail for this...". However, the UK military is stating that the US authorities will not agree to release the video to be seen by the coroner's jury.

In what circumstances should military authorities be entitled to ignore legal requirements that all other parts of society have to comply with?

And who should ensure that there are genuine national security considerations at stake, rather than a desire to avoid embarrassment?

Any thoughts....

It is abserd they wont let the jury see it. Not wanting to let the general public see it may be justifable but to deny the jury is indefencible.

 

[woody60707]

jury for what?

 

[GinandTonic]

jury for what?

The coroner's jury examining the death of the Lance Corporal Matty Hull, aparently at the hands of an A10.

 

[bigfatron]

In the UK any violent or suspicious death under the law must be reviewed by a coroner, sitting with a jury (except in the most exceptional cases). Analagous to the way a judge/jury system tries criminal cases, the jury reaches a decision, guided in law by the coroner, as to whether the cause of the death is:
- natural causes
- accidental death
- manslaughter/murder
- suicide while the balance of mind was disturbed
- wilful suicide
- armed combat
- open verdict (where the cause cannot be determined beyond reasonable doubt).

Coroners' courts have jurisdiction over citizens resident in their area regardless of where they die. So - for instance - the Oxford coroner covers the area containing a number of military bases and has jurisdiction over deaths of personnel from those bases, regardless of where they take place.

For combat deaths these investigations are formalities unless there is a suspicion that they did not die as a result of enemy action.

Military authorities have tried to challenge or deflect the authority of the coroner to conduct these cases; in particular US authorities have strongly resisted the release of critical information where US personnel are implicated in the death of UK personnel, including lying about the existence of videos, radio logs and the like.

This has caused anger in the UK, especially amongst forces'/veterans' families.

 

[GinandTonic]

Listening to radio now -

The board of inquirery had this info in 2004, since when the MOD and the yanks have denied the existance of the tapes.

The coroner was aparently visably shaking with rage.


Well, like the pilot said on the tape "someones going to jail for this"

 

[woody60707]

Think you for the information on how coroner's duties are done. But i am still confused on a few points.

Why would that tape be needed to find the cause of death? (FF by US A-10)

 

[AL_DA_GREAT]

Not far at all. I rather live in country where 3-4 people die every year than live in oceania.

 

[Masquerouge]

I would be amazed if the US government would allow one of their soldiers to be tried and jailed by the UK for this.

After all, it's exactly to avoid these cases that the US government is not a member of the International Court.

 

[GinandTonic]

Think you for the information on how coroner's duties are done. But i am still confused on a few points.

Why would that tape be needed to find the cause of death? (FF by US A-10)

The jury has to decide if it was, accidental death, manslaughter/murder or armed combat. Basically they have to decide if charges should be brought against anyone. Note - IIRC they dont get to decide who may have to face the charges, only if the death is of such a cause as to be criminal.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Not far at all. I rather live in country where 3-4 people die every year than live in oceania.

I'm not sure what living on a pacific island has to do with the military screw up, but it seems to me that the coroner had a nefarious agenda ("visibly shaking with rage" and all that), which spooked the people with the tape into standard delay tactic.

 

[bigfatron]

I'm not sure what living on a pacific island has to do with the military screw up, but it seems to me that the coroner had a nefarious agenda ("visibly shaking with rage" and all that), which spooked the people with the tape into standard delay tactic.

Why would a coroner have a 'nefarious agenda'? He is a civil servant with a job to do, UK judges and coroners are unelected and independent of government by strong tradition.

His anger is more likely due to the fact that he has been repeatedly lied to and obstructed in doing his job - remember he has to talk to the grieving family regularly to update them on the progress of his investigation, I imagine it could get to you if you are being deliberately hampered.

 

[bigfatron]

I would be amazed if the US government would allow one of their soldiers to be tried and jailed by the UK for this.

After all, it's exactly to avoid these cases that the US government is not a member of the International Court.

So would I, which is sort of to the issue I raised. To what extent should military be able to say 'I don't care what your laws say'?

Also, if a US airman acted negligently to kill US soldiers, would he be liable to court martial and possible imprisonment? I would guess the answer is yes. In which case, why is it actionable to kill your own troops, but not actionable if you kill your allies? It sort of tells your allies, when the chips are down you will find out how much your friends value you.....

 

[woody60707]

I would be amazed if the US government would allow one of their soldiers to be tried and jailed by the UK for this.

After all, it's exactly to avoid these cases that the US government is not a member of the International Court.

The IC would in no way never in any reasonable or wildly imagined way step in and try to over rule the US/UK matter in a case like that. It is the FEAR of the IC would step in cases such as this and over rule that has kept the US out.

The jury has to decide if it was, accidental death, manslaughter/murder or armed combat. Basically they have to decide if charges should be brought against anyone. Note - IIRC they dont get to decide who may have to face the charges, only if the death is of such a cause as to be criminal.

I understand now. (we do it some what different here). Does the UK not have a military court much like the US armed force have. Could not they view classified items?

In the US, this would be an almost purely military matter, with military courts and military jails. I am guessing you don't have the same setup?

If you do, then why not the UK military try it?

 

[GinandTonic]

I'm not sure what living on a pacific island has to do with the military screw up, but it seems to me that the coroner had a nefarious agenda ("visibly shaking with rage" and all that), which spooked the people with the tape into standard delay tactic.

He was shaking with rage because of the Defence Dpt and the MOD first telling him there was no tape when they both had copies and then refusing to release the tape for the jury.

I understand now. (we do it some what different here). Does the UK not have a military court much like the US armed force have. Could not they view classified items?

In the US, this would be an almost purely military matter, with military courts and military jails. I am guessing you don't have the same setup?

If you do, then why not the UK military try it?

Not sure of the details of how it works but every unnatural or unusual death has a coroners inquest. Often these are very quick if the case is open and shut.

The coroner only seems to be involved in mil cases when people are not happy with the mil's handling of the event. If the mil sweep it under the carpet then the coroner's jury can direct that it was an unlawful killing or what-have-you and the mil then have to address it as such.

 

[woody60707]

Can the coroner overrule the UK's military findings?

When i say this i assume two things. That the UK/US (i would hope both did their own investigation) already done it's investigation in this matter. And both findings were not to charge anyone.

Their is also the matter of the UK requesting expedition hearings.

 

[GinandTonic]

Can the coroner overrule the UK's military findings?

Ive spoken to an ex-lawer who says the interface for mil law and normal law is wird, complicated and so obscure that lawers dont have to study it to qualify. Looking online and will get back if I find anything.

When i say this i assume two things. That the UK/US (i would hope both did their own investigation) already done it's investigation in this matter. And both findings were not to charge anyone.

The coroner only gets meaningfully involved when someone is unhappy with the mil handling of the event.

Their is also the matter of the UK requesting expedition hearings.

Extradition wont happen. This is a first step on a long road that would go from the coroner to a military report to the uk politicos demanding action to a us investigation having to give some better answers.

 

[Masquerouge]

The IC would in no way never in any reasonable or wildly imagined way step in and try to over rule the US/UK matter in a case like that. It is the FEAR of the IC would step in cases such as this and over rule that has kept the US out.

Actually the way the IC works is that a member nation can sue another member nation when they think justice has not been served. So for instance, were the UK and the US both members, and were the US not cooperative in the inquiry we're discussing in this thread, the UK could bring the US to the IC to get a trial.
A bit like the WTO.
But the IC would not intervene if the US cooperated with the UK, and the UK was satisfied with the way things are going.

EDIT: And I've completely lost myself with all these conditional tenses

 

[Stolen Rutters]

He was shaking with rage because of the Defence Dpt and the MOD first telling him there was no tape when they both had copies and then refusing to release the tape for the jury.

I had to actually read the article and it doesn't mention any rage. It seems I took a previous poster's assertions at face value. I see what is being talked about now.

Some people are angered at the ministry's previous failure to disclose the existence of classified material. Over here in the US, it is considered routine not to verify the existence of 'classified' materials. I agree it makes it easy for people in authority to delay the exposure of data by overclassifying a document or recording. I also agree that it was probably not necessary to delay this long in this case.

Being classified as it is, the only two solutions would be to give you access to that level of classified material, or to declassify the material. Neither of these options is quick. It does suck that it gives the military ample opportunity to stonewall. At least the US had turned it over to MoD, and MoD has recently turned it over to the coroner. It's possible that the jury does not have the proper classified access if the coroner already has the recording but can't show it.

 

[GinandTonic]

I had to actually read the article and it doesn't mention any rage. It seems I took a previous poster's assertions at face value. I see what is being talked about now.

Some people are angered at the ministry's previous failure to disclose the existence of classified material. Over here in the US, it is considered routine not to verify the existence of 'classified' materials. I agree it makes it easy for people in authority to delay the exposure of data by overclassifying a document or recording. I also agree that it was probably not necessary to delay this long in this case.

Being classified as it is, the only two solutions would be to give you access to that level of classified material, or to declassify the material. Neither of these options is quick. It does suck that it gives the military ample opportunity to stonewall. At least the US had turned it over to MoD, and MoD has recently turned it over to the coroner. It's possible that the jury does not have the proper classified access if the coroner already has the recording but can't show it.

The "visably shaking with rage" was a comment by the BBC jurno at the inquest doing an in-depth for Radio 5.

As I see it sign the jury up to the Official Secrets Act and show em the tape. At least sign up the coroner and show him so he can judge if this evidence is critical for the jury to see.