Wednesday, January 08, 2003

"Methed Up" - date

Finally some coverage...

USA today has given the case a "cover story."

The article is balanced and gives the best time line description I have read so far.

It also lists three very mitigating points of significance found by the official inquiry:

* The U.S. pilots were never told that the Canadians were training with live ammunition -- the tracer fire the pilots saw -- because the command center did not require such exercises to be reported down the line.

* Canadian ground commanders failed to stick to their timetable for their training exercise.

* No one, including the Canadian commander on the Airborne Warning and Communications System (AWACS) jet that provided traffic control for the pilots, knew what the Canadians were doing on the ground.

Also mentioned are some of the planned defense elements -- taken from flaws cited by the board of inquiry:

* First, the lawyers say, is the issue of the go pills. The Air Force gives out the stimulant dexamphetamine as part of a ''fatigue management'' program. There are also ''no-go pills,'' usually the depressant Ambien, to help pilots sleep. The investigative report says the go pills were ''not a factor.'' But Clifford Saper, a Harvard University neurology professor, says the drug ''may make a pilot misjudge his abilities or a situation.''

* Both pilots were nearing the end of what would be a 20-hour workday. Air Force regulations limit shifts to no more than 12 hours.

* The pilots wore night-vision goggles, which can distort peripheral vision and depth perception.

* One of the pilots told investigators that they were warned before their flight that al-Qaeda forces posed an imminent threat on the ground near Kandahar. ''They were briefed that there are bad guys out there near Kandahar, and they're planning to ambush them. And ambush is the word they used.''

Also of interest is one pilot's attorney -- Charles W. Gittins. This man has a rep.

He is one of the two civilian military justice specializing attorneys I would pick from to defend me if I was ever before a courts-martial.

Why?

For starts, he is a member of the class of '79.

I can already hear my ROTC buddies groaning as they read this, but the ring means something to us. It signifies a commonality of experience and despite some of the knocks academy types take in the fleet, its rare to find someone who doesn't list an Annapolis grad as one of the finest officers they've ever served with.

Additionally, Gittins was a Marine Corps combat pilot which adds to his credibility before the members in this instance. Pilots are a sub-species of officer all of their own.

Plus here is a sampling of his high profile cases: CDR Scott Waddle, commanding officer of the USS Greeneville which collided with the Japanese fishing boat off HI; the Sgt. Major Eugene McKinney sexual misconduct charges -- McKinney was the most senior enlisted member of the Army at the time; the Donnamaria Carpino case which involved the deputy-inspector general of the Army blackmailing subordinate's spouses for sexual favors -- Gittins represented a victim.

It will be interesting to see which JAGs he is up against, and if Gittins can trash-can the case at the Article 32 stage.

An article 32 is the military version of a preliminary hearing. The government has to put enough evidence before a presiding officer to pass a preponderance test. If the government attorneys can't convince this officer they have a case, the buck stops.

Gittins can attack the government's evidence as much as he wants, but can save his case for the actual trial.

Anyway...

Its good to see the USAF policy of mandatory amphetamine use is finally getting more press.

posted by Bohica at 10:11 AM