Soldier's Widow Asks Bush For Full Report

Team Infidel

Team Infidel

Forum Spin Doctor
Baltimore Sun
March 16, 2007

OXFORD, England--The widow of a British soldier killed by U.S. pilots in Iraq appealed yesterday to President Bush to release the full text of a military report into the incident. Lance Cpl. Matty Hull, 25, was killed when his convoy was strafed by a U.S. warplane in southern Iraq on March 28, 2003. Four other British soldiers were wounded. Susan Hull said 11 lines of the U.S. military's Friendly Fire Investigation Board report into the incident had been blacked out in a copy supplied to the inquest.
 
Hmmmmm... like the press or the bleeding hearts of the world would ever give a rat's ass about OPSEC or PERSEC. They'd rather plaster all that information up where the whole world can see it... they dont care about the lives it will take because for all their high sounding bullspit soldiers mean nothing to them. ****ing media, piss on em.
 
This isn't about the media, its about a widow wanting information concerning the death of her husband.
 
There is more to this story then have been made available in this report.
Someone screwed the pooch bigtime.

A few of the blue on blue incidents are currently under investigation.

"There is no such thing as friendly fire."
 
And this woman does she have a security clearance? If no then, as much as it would be wonderful to have full disclosure so she can have all her questions answered, the lives that might be endangered and lost preclude such details being dispersed.
 
It was the way in which the cockpit video was deemed "classified" by the US, I think most people have seen it now and i personally did not see what was so "classified" by it, neither did a fair few people. Thankfully the Sun newspaper managed to obtain a leaked copy of the cockpit video in this case.

I agree that security is of first priority always but i think in this case that it was used as an excuse. I don't think lives could have been lost by showing this video.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6456191.stm for further reading

As for the whole "It was unlawful because there was no lawful reason for it and in that respect it was criminal." i don't think i agree with the statement.

I have a hell of a lot of respect for the widow though, she has been very brave and showed a lot of common sense.
 
Well, obviosuly there are papers thy could get the old lady to sign. And still show her the vid, but time and time again the government shows how ignorant they are...:read:
 
Exactly no matter how many questions she has answered she will have two fold as many to ask.

Perhaps they should have done a better job covering up what they withheld and no one would have been the wiser.
 
jequirity said:
It was the way in which the cockpit video was deemed "classified" by the US, I think most people have seen it now and i personally did not see what was so "classified" by it, neither did a fair few people. Thankfully the Sun newspaper managed to obtain a leaked copy of the cockpit video in this case.

I agree that security is of first priority always but i think in this case that it was used as an excuse. I don't think lives could have been lost by showing this video.
Click to expand...

So because you, and others without experience or knowledge in what is and isn't useful to the enemy and any other interested parties feel something shouldn't be classified, then obviously it's just a silly waste of resource to classify?

You have no idea how much sensitive information was deemed "not a big deal" by the press and others that's been put out for public consumption. You also have no idea what problems it has caused for those with their lives on the line.

It's a good idea to have a little respect for OPSEC/PERSEC even if you don't always understand the reasons.
 
This incident while sad, is not as bad as the Patriotcrews fiering on both own Helos and fighters.

But,

Fact remains, there will always be blue on blue incidents in war..All we can do is to work towards minimizing the danger of it occuring again.

IF panels and /or insignias are inplace we have done what we can, the rest is down to "the fog of war".
Sad that it happens, and I personally will grieve every instance of blue on blue that occurs.
But we can´t stop fighting just because a few friendly vehicles are hit, we who signed on know the risks and we deal with them.
 
Last edited:
Agreed ^^^ with both above posts and would add to KJ's thoughts that as much as each thinking person would love to have the whole truth in any such situation it simply cannot be done. There are more lives that hang in the balance and depend on the keeping certain information out of the hands of the enemy and the press does not discriminate who reads or sees what they print. The very fact you dont understand what needs to be censored Jequirty and Major Liability shows that the system is working. Rest easy in your beds tonight knowing that men like PJ and others of his caliber stand ready to protect you from evils you dont comprehend and wont if the vital information needed to allow them to successfully complete their mission and return home alive is kept from even your minds let alone the bastards who lust for the chance to slit your throats.
 
PJ24 said:
So because you, and others without experience or knowledge in what is and isn't useful to the enemy and any other interested parties feel something shouldn't be classified, then obviously it's just a silly waste of resource to classify?

You have no idea how much sensitive information was deemed "not a big deal" by the press and others that's been put out for public consumption. You also have no idea what problems it has caused for those with their lives on the line.

It's a good idea to have a little respect for OPSEC/PERSEC even if you don't always understand the reasons.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with you at all but a lot of this would have been avoided by releasing a "sanitised" report to the woman, it doesn't matter what the reason is if you hand someone a report with lines blacked out people will assume the worst and the authorities are just making a rod for their own back.
 
PJ24 said:
So because you, and others without experience or knowledge in what is and isn't useful to the enemy and any other interested parties feel something shouldn't be classified, then obviously it's just a silly waste of resource to classify?

You have no idea how much sensitive information was deemed "not a big deal" by the press and others that's been put out for public consumption. You also have no idea what problems it has caused for those with their lives on the line.

It's a good idea to have a little respect for OPSEC/PERSEC even if you don't always understand the reasons.
Click to expand...

Mate, i didn't deem security as a silly waste of resources and believe me, i don't. I do also have respect for security issues and i freely admit that I have no experience in determining whats ok to release and whats not. I am however, open minded enough to think that security issues can and have probably been used as a conveniant excuse occasionally. I am also open minded enough to also know that the media like myself probably knows :cens: all about what should be classified and what shouldn't and the system in place just now shouldn't be tinkered with as its the best we have.

I do have to thank, as Bulldog said, everyone for the job they are doing and i apologize if my lack of military related knowledge offends anyone on this forum. I hope a civilians point of view can add some new points of view to some discussions and that these views don't get on everyones nerves.

I don't disagree with security measures, i disagree with the way in which this incident was handled.
 
MontyB said:
I don't disagree with you at all but a lot of this would have been avoided by releasing a "sanitised" report to the woman, it doesn't matter what the reason is if you hand someone a report with lines blacked out people will assume the worst and the authorities are just making a rod for their own back.
Click to expand...

I agree completely.

My reply wasn't really meant to be specific to this particular circumstance, but the general attitude a lot of civilians seem to have towards "security." And as evident by Jeq's reply above, I did not grasp your true intent so I certainly don't want to lump you in with those types, Jer. Thanks for expounding.
 
So, rather than simply stating that we civilians are not allowed to view certain information you'd rather give us a straight-faced lie?

That is contrary to a lot of the things this country stands for.
 
major liability said:
So, rather than simply stating that we civilians are not allowed to view certain information you'd rather give us a straight-faced lie?

That is contrary to a lot of the things this country stands for.
Click to expand...

No, just you. You're the only one the government wants to lie to, and does on regular occasions. But that's because Uncle Sam doesn't like you. :mrgreen:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top